Bank of America Ordered to Pay $1.2 BILLION for Fraudulent Mortgages

“Given the current environment where robo-signing became institutionalized as a practice even though it is the equivalent of forgery and where fabrication of documents by law offices and “document processors” were prepared according to a published menu of prices, why would anyone, least of all a court of law, apply general principles surrounding presumptions when established fact makes it more likely than not that the presumptions lead to the wrong conclusions? Where is the prejudice to anyone in abandoning these presumptions in light of all the information in the public domain?” — Neil Garfield, livinglies.me

THEY ACTUALLY CALLED IT “HUSTLE”

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan ruled nine months after jurors found Bank of America and former Countrywide executive Rebecca Mairone liable for defrauding government-controlled mortgage companies Fannie Mae (FNMA.OB) and Freddie Mac (FMCC.OB) through the sale of shoddy loans by the former Countrywide Financial Inc in 2007 and 2008.

The case centered on a mortgage lending process known as “High Speed Swim Lane,” “HSSL” or “Hustle,” and which ended before Bank of America bought Countrywide in July 2008.

Investigators said the program emphasized quantity over quality, rewarding employees for producing more loans and eliminating checkpoints designed to ensure the loans’ quality. (see link below)

Now that an actual employee of the Bank has also been ordered to pay $1 Million, maybe others will start coming out of the woodwork seeking immunity for their testimony. There certainly has been a large exodus of employees and officers of Bank of America to other Banks and even other industries. They are all trying to distance themselves from the inevitable down fall of the Bank. Meanwhile the corrupt system is heavily engaged with financial news reporting. For every article pointing out that Bank of America might have hundreds of Billions of dollars in legal liabilities for their fraudulent practices in originating, acquiring, servicing and foreclosing mortgages, there are five articles spread over the internet telling investors that BOA is a good investment and it is advisable to buy the stock. I know how that system works. For favors or money some people will write anything.

THE BURDEN OF PLEADINGS AND PROOF MUST BE CHANGED

The question I continue to raise is that if there was an administrative finding of fraud by an agency of the government, which there was, and if there was a jury finding of fraud involved in the Countrywide mortgages (and other mortgages) why are we presuming in court that that the mortgage is valid?

I understand the statutory and common law presumptions arising out of certain instruments that appear to be facially valid. But I propose that lawyers challenge those presumptions based upon the widespread knowledge and information across the public domain that many if not most of the mortgages were procured by fraud, processed fraudulently, serviced fraudulently, and foreclosed fraudulently. In my opinion it is time for lawyers to challenge that presumption in light of the numerous studies, agency investigations and findings that the mortgages, from beginning to end, were fraudulently originated, acquired and processed.

Why should the filings of a pretender lender receive the benefit of the presumptions of validity just because it exists when we already know it is more likely than not that there are no underlying facts to support the presumptions — and knowing that there was probably fraud involved? Why should the burden remain on the borrowers who have the least access to the information about that fraud and who get nothing from the banks during discovery?

Forfeiture of the private residence of a person is the worst outcome of any civil litigation. It is like the death penalty in criminal litigation. Shouldn’t it require intense scrutiny instead of a rocket docket that presumes the validity of the mortgage and note, and presumes that a possessor of a note (that more likely than not was fabricated and forged by a machine) has the right to enforce?

In a REAL transaction in the REAL world, the originator of a loan would demand that all underwriting restrictions be applied, and confirmation of the submissions by the borrower. If anyone was buying the loan in the secondary market, they would demand the same thing and proof that the assignor, endorser or transferor of the loan had title to it in every conceivable way.

The buyer would demand copies of the actual documentation so that they could enforce the loan. These documents would exist and be kept in a vault because the fate of the investment normally depends upon the ability of the “lender” or “purchaser” of the loan to prove that the loan was properly originated and transferred for value in good faith without knowledge of any defenses of the borrower.

In short, they would demand that they receive proof of all aspects in the chain of title such that they would be considered a Holder in Due Course.

Today, nobody seems to allege they are a holder in due course and nobody seems to want to identify any party as a Holder in Due Course or even a creditor. They use the term “holder” with its presumptions as a sword against the hapless borrower who doesn’t have the information to know that his or her loan is likely NOT owned by anyone in the chain claimed by the foreclosing party.

If it were otherwise, all foreclosure cases would end with a thud — the loan would be produced in all its glory with everything in its place and fully disclosed. The only defense left would be payment. Instead the banks are waiting years to run the statute on TILA rescission and TILA violations before they start actively prosecuting a foreclosure.

What bank with a legitimate claim for foreclosure would want to wait before it got its hands on the collateral for a loan in default? Incredibly, these delays which often amount to five years or more, are ascribed to borrowers who are “buying time” without looking at the docket to see that the delay is caused by the Plaintiff foreclosing party, not the borrower who has been actively seeking discovery.

What harm would there be to anyone who is a legitimate stakeholder in this process if we required the banks to plead and prove in all cases — judicial and nonjudicial — the following:

  1. All closing documents with the borrower conformed with Federal and State law as to disclosures, Good Faith Estimate and appraisals.
  2. Underwriting and due diligence for approval of the loan application was performed by [insert name of party].
  3. The payee on the note loaned money to the borrower.
  4. The mortgagee on the mortgage (or beneficiary on the deed of trust) was the source of funds for the loan.
  5. The “originator” of the loan was the lender.
  6. No investor or third party was the creditor, investor or lender at the closing of the loan.
  7. Attached to the pleading are wire transfer receipts or canceled checks showing that the borrower received the funds from the party named on the settlement documents as the lender.
  8. Each assignment in the chain of title to the loan was the result of a transaction in which the loan was sold by the owner of the loan for value in good faith without knowledge of borrower’s defenses.
  9. Each assignment in the chain of title to the loan was the result of a transaction in which the loan was purchased by a bona fide purchaser for value in good faith without knowledge of borrower’s defenses.
  10. Attached to the pleading are wire transfer receipts or canceled checks showing that the seller of the loan received the funds from the party named on the assignment or endorsement as the purchaser.
  11. The creditor for this debt is [name the creditor]. The creditor has notice of this proceeding and has authorized the filing of this foreclosure [see attached authorization document].
  12. The date of the purchase by the creditor Trust is [put in the date]. Attached to the pleading are wire transfer receipts or canceled checks showing that the seller of the subject loan received the funds from the REMIC Trust named in the pleadings as the purchaser.
  13. The purchase by the Trust conformed to the terms and conditions of the Trust instrument which is the Pooling and Servicing Agreement [attached, or URL given where it can be accessed]
  14. The Creditor’s accounts show a deficiency in payments caused by the failure of the borrower to pay under the terms of the note.
  15. All payments received by the creditor (owner of the loan) have been posted whether received directly or received indirectly by agents of the creditor.
  16. The creditor has suffered financial injury and has declared a default on its own account. [See attached Notice of Default].
  17. The last payment received by the creditor from anyone paying on this subject loan account was [insert date].

When I represented Banks and Homeowner Associations in foreclosures against homeowners and commercial property owners, I had all of this information at my fingertips and could produce them instantly.

Given the current environment where robo-signing became institutionalized as a practice even though it is the equivalent of forgery and where fabrication of documents by law offices and “document processors” were prepared according to a published menu of prices, why would anyone, least of all a court of law, apply general principles surrounding presumptions when established fact makes it more likely than not that the presumptions lead to the wrong conclusions? Where is the prejudice to anyone in abandoning these presumptions in light of all the information in the public domain?

see http://thebostonjournal.com/2014/07/30/bank-of-america-ordered-to-pay-1-27-billion-for-countrywide-fraud/

For consultations, services, title and securitization reports, reviews and analysis please call 520-405-1688 or 954-495-9867.

64 Responses

  1. Who is Authorized to change the trustee in a securitized loan. US Bank National Association was the Trustee before we went into the Bankruptcy Process. Once the Bankruptcy proceedings started, Wells Fargo’s (Servicer)’s Attorneys created documents to appoint individuals within thier lawfirm as trustees. Im no attorney, but something just does not seem right about that. James 443 677 2799 jsmith5915@msn.com

  2. Usedkarguy why are you so quite here Ive read your stuff before and your very well informed,so come on with the knowledge and lets get the party started.

  3. Oh and by the way in Virginia you have no right to challenge or demand to see the note NONE WHATSOEVER

  4. Virginia doesnt allow the homeowner to attack the assignment either. In my case the court is finding no standing to attack the assignment even though it is forged, robosigned and the transfer is from the servicer to DB I reviewed scores of cases where the unlucky like myself had the same result Unfortunately this website or blog or whatever it is does not tell people the unvarnished truth: you almost cannot win because they want to take those houses and the courts are totally on board with that They care nothing about fraud They are convinced you have no rights. You didnt pay. Be damned to you

  5. who got to chrome to block 4 closure fraud?

  6. No Servicer, No Trusee, No Trust!

  7. Amen Deb. UKG, I know right, how long do you think theeee other borrower can survive on BS? Am I to pity him? Hubby couldve filed bk and left him a beholding toi me. Dam Pride! Yeah, I get it now Roger. But you know him.

  8. Ukg. Nicely put

  9. Indiana Notary admits selling social security numbers BUT still has commission. That should help everyone sleep well at night. Right UKG, racketeering n theft by conversion, equitable tolling will keep this alive for yrs to come. Its to bad they didn’t trust us to do the right thing but instead lied, concealed and unleashed their dogs on us. Kats Rule n Dogs Drool.

  10. @E.Tolle, I re-read your piece, and you’re eloquence is only exceeded by your insight.

  11. Jim, the issue now needs to be confronted as a theft by conversion using forged, counterfeit documents. The vernacular has to change here. As cookies said, it is grand larceny.
    Borrower is now HOMEOWNER
    Robosigning is FORGERY
    The mortgage and note was not a real estate closing, it was a SECURITIES ISSUANCE BY THE HOMEOWNER
    Fraudulent filing in the county record is a FELONY
    Forging and creating fraudulent documents is not testimony or disparaging commentary against a witness, it is CONDUCT outside the CRIME FRAUD EXCEPTION SUBJECT TO THE RACKETEERING STATUTES.
    A copy of a copy of a note, endorsed or unendorsed, is a copy, aka COUNTERFEIT.
    The lender was not a lender, he was a borrower just like you, and the note makes the LENDER LIABLE as well as the homeowner (PARAGRAPH NINE OF A FAN/FRED NOTE)
    They have to act under UCC 9, and they cannot prove legal ownership of the note they seek to enforce because of the chain of title issue. A court cannot enforce a note on behalf of a thief.
    A mortgage has rights that are assigned, and can be equitably assigned with the TRANSFER OF THE NOTE, FOR CONSIDERATION, WITH DELIVERY AND ACCEPTANCE by the HOLDER IN DUE COURSE, or a person entitled to enforce THE RIGHTS OF THE HOLDER. The holder must have rights for its’ agent to enforce those rights.

  12. And as for judicial attitude – has to be impartial, even the appearance of partiality- proving bias in a judges mind is a crazy concept since everyone has subconscious bias it’s human nature – hence only the appearance of partiality is required and is frowned upon per case law.

    Not a lawyer not legal advice just sharing my personal research.

  13. And … How many more parties are unaware, uninformed and could have a interest in the collateral property. What is on the record is sham collection of a debt under guise if foreclosure under power of sale – executed unlawfully and has mislead the court to believe it was lawful. And, so there , Jim.🙂. It’s not going away and niether is slander of a Title.

  14. Can you be in default to a non creditor and was that ” creditor” due full amount under the contract agreement or were material facts concealed for exactly the purpose of fooling the courts state and/ or federal. I have a 1099a says they can try.

  15. The courts, federal especially, dont favor actions based on accusations of fraud and robosigning in the foreclosure docs because they say you owe the money; therefore a few misrepresentations along the way by the debt collectors dont change that fact. All the discussions I read here dont take into account the judicial attitude and holding in these thousands of cases. The decisions in these cases get you thrown out of court pronto

  16. Slander to title is a state claim not a federal claim.

  17. The federal circuits throw out actions based on robosigning as not material to the fact that the debtor defaulted

  18. Deborah have you tried United Law Center? You know the ones who got $16M for a wrongful foreclosure in California? Be Strong and dont give up the fight.

    NEVER AGAIN

  19. When they said they only needed the signature of one borrower to modify. They were refering to the borrowers on the Mortgage Note. Not the Note. Two Notes. Idenity Theft comes to mind.

  20. The Royal Flush is one assignment of the mortgage n note Together by MERs naming multiple non parties to the origional transaction. No Trust! Nope! No Trust!

  21. Fraudulent concealment, misrepresentation. Fraudulent assignments of mortgage or DOT by MERS. Unlawful fc proceedings, filing of fraudulent docs on the court.

  22. Power of three. : )

  23. UKG, my Royal Flush beats your full house. TILA n RESPA are minor infractions compared to Fraud and Grand Theft Larcency. Fraud on the Face and in the Inducement. Am I the only one with signed cpoies from closing?

  24. Tolle, I think Gene is a wrench thrower.

  25. Louise, I have three assignments and two notes! My full house beats your three-of-a-kind!

  26. I don’t remember seeing a post on this settlement (link below). This one went right to the underwriting (or lack thereof) a.k.a. “due diligence” to be performed by the Securities Underwriter. It was non existent. See the exhibits and find your mortgage trust in there.

    If the bond blew up leaving only a couple tranches (usually equity tranches held by the sponsor), doesn’t that trigger event force the extinguishment the obligation to the Trustee? The borrower’s OBLIGATION as well as the bank (see paragraph nine of your Fannie/Freddie note) is paid off by credit enhancement and swaps. There is no loss, there can be no claim. Especially without any recordation of title aka recorded assignment with an accompanying endorsement of the note (aka tranfer and delivery).

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-citi-mortgage-securities-settlement-20140714-story.html

  27. I’d estimate my odds are better than 10 percent , definitely better.: )

  28. Cookie you seem like a good soldier but when I know my case and I know what I would need from a lawyer who has say 100 cases at once I do understand the complexity – albeit as to what applies and what does not apply to my case where it and the strengths of my case where it is , now is not the time to turn it over trust me – no lawyer wants my case where it is now and they are not willing to work as hard as I do. aND I can’t afford the kind of lawyer I would hire.

  29. Deb, the odds are only 10 percent of a former home owner reappearing and even less odds for them to get the house back. . Its an uphill battle. That’s what we were told by our daughters attorney. You know I am rooting and praying for you. Its a catch 22 for me. You Fight the Good Fight! Win or Lose, just know that God has already Blessed you!

  30. I am thinking of hiring a Private Investigator It is cheaper than a lawyer. I just watched Giligans Island and Thurston Howell always finds dirt on his adversaries.

    NEVER AGAIN

  31. Cookie you may as well tell me to give up my baby at this point.

  32. Deb, I know you have been burned by lawyers. I myself didn’t know the good guys from the bad guys. That makes it difficult. I had to Trust Someone, so do you. Back then the only fc attornies were those who did the fc. That’s not the case anymore. Have an Expierenced Title, Estate, Mortgage review your pleadings.

  33. Some purchase both. The juglar n aeorta. Keep In Mind that Its gets messy and Funerals aren’t Free. Hire an Attorney!

  34. Drum Roll Please. Dum da Dum Dum Dummmm. I forgot to end in this. “State Laws Vary”. I can vouch for Neil on that one. Federal Laws are the same. Pick Your Poison.

  35. We don’t except Whine and will not let you in if you show up with it, we don’t like our Cheetos soggy . Just thought you should know that.

  36. Welcome to the Winners Circle Gene. Keep the debate clean. Or Neil will send you to the corner. Bring some Wine

  37. E.Tolle, Gene is some kind of a shill. Not sure which kind. However, back several months ago I begged to differ with him about the fact that there ARE NO LAWS on the books to mandate recordation of the transfers of real property/titles. He did not know or did not want to know there ARE laws all across the country with regard to proper recordation of transfer of title of real property, which only makes sense because all transfers need to be recorded to PREVENT FRAUD and theft. Thus, we have quite a few suits across the country against MERS for screwing up the titles to thousands/millions of properties.

  38. Deb, here is one to Top. About 20yrs back It was my responsibility to place the ads for the preschool. The gal at the local paper who typed up the ad mispelled nurturing. All the sudden we were in the business of neutering. I’ve never topped that one. LOL

  39. That’s great cookie I feel so much better about my typos now ha! ( believe me I’ve had worse iPhone word defaults. )

  40. Ooopsy. Notary of the Public. Where is my spell checker? Oh My! Pubic? LOL!

  41. Guilty only of being a bad speller.

  42. FYI, National Signing Agent, Title Abstracter, n. Notary of the Pubic.

  43. I did as my attorney advised. Althou BOA/BAC n I have a difference of opinion about that. Who do you think forges statements on Bank Letterhead, them or me? Hint! Not Me!

  44. WB JG, Absulutely! As a NSA I caught on quick about the Forgery n lack of signing capicity as you did. Being ordered by Fidelity n LPS to do it their way or don’t get paid pissed me off. I couldn’t n wouldn’t do it. But I couldn’t figure out for the longest time WHY. Spreading the Risks was the intention, but Greed n the Lack of Regulation opened the door for the criminal enterprise. Legal My Gr’ass!! Fraud from begining to end. Sighhh!

  45. MERS is the banking industries making
    Never would the people consider it safe practice. It’s unsafe and it’s damaging. expediency is no excuse. I want to know who died and made the banks king and country law makers regarding the recording system.

  46. MERS is the banking industries making
    Never would the people consider it safe practice. It’s unsafe and it’s damaging. expiediency is no excuse. I want to know who died and made the banks king and country law makers regarding the recording system.

  47. Say “NO” to a Mers Mortgage.

    MERS and securitization have to GO.

  48. Gene, on July 30, 2014 at 8:30 pm said:

    NG,

    “I am really beginning to wonder about your ability to understand the written word. What you write above is not what is going on with the PIMCO lawsuit.

    PIMCO, etc, filed the lawsuit on a violation of Fiduciary Duty issues. Primarily, the claim is that the Trustees failed to exercise their FD to the Investors by not demanding repurchase of defective loans for Reps and Warranties violations.

    Reps and Warranties violations do not mean that the loan is void, or the contract is void, nothing of the sort. It means that there are issues with potentially income or appraisal fraud, occupancy fraud, TILA/RESPA disclosure issues (minor infractions) and numerous other items. These do not void the loan.”

    Whoa there cowboy! Minor infractions? Fraud, fraud, and more fraud? Are you actually allowed to take the stand in a court of law? Gheez!

    Actually Gene, there are many aspects of fiduciary responsibilities or the lack thereof in this suit. As a matter of fact, one of the main avenues for this lawsuit is the fact that the banksters were using investor monies to cure predatory (fraudulent) loans, as seen here:

    Section 3.11 of the PSAs provides that “Countrywide may agree to a modification of any Mortgage Loan” in certain specified circumstances. The Holders do not seek to halt bona fide modifications of troubled loans for borrowers who need them (a point on which Neil Garfield has been outspoken). When, however, modifications are required to remedy predatory lending violations, Section2.03(c) of the PSAs requires that the offending seller of the mortgage bear the costs to “cure such breach in all material respects….” Nowhere do the PSAs permit the costs of curing predatory loans to be imposed on the Trusts or the Certificate holders. Despite these provisions, the Master Servicer has breached the PSAs by agreeing to modify loans held in the Trusts for the purpose of settling predatory lending claims made by various Attorneys’ General against its parent company while breaching its obligation to demand that the offending mortgage seller (its parent company) bear the costs of curing the violation, as well as the expenses reasonably incurred in enforcement of the mortgage seller’s obligation to cure predatory mortgages.

    The Master Servicer has also unjustly enriched its parent company by using Trust collateral to settle claims that are not, and could never be, made against the Trusts, in a manner that has “materially and adversely affected the interest of the Certificateholders…”

    Yet another avenue for Wall Street to off-load its $$$ criminality. Why pay for anything so convoluted as to mystify MITers? So many elements of this suit are over a predatory issue, and contrary to your belief, fraud is fraud, no matter who the fraud’s aimed at. Fraus omnia vitiate, or, “Fraud vitiates everything”, whether it’s tossed at trusts, mortgagees, or low-life mortgagors.

    And btw, these aren’t simple TILA and/or RESPA violations (as you referenced) Pimco’s bitching about. Fiduciary duties can be some serious shit, As IS being called out in the Pimco etc., lawsuit. The following is from Gibbs & Bruns, Pimco etc’s law firm) to Bank of New York and Bank of America (one and the same evil doers) over alleged breaches by Countrywide of its reps and warranties with respect to the servicing of the loans underlying its investments….

    – Failed to maintain accurate and adequate loan and collateral files in a manner consistent with prudent mortgage servicing standards;

    – Failed to demand that sellers cure deficiencies in mortgage records when deficient loan files and lien records are discovered….

    I guess you’re one of the few “experts” who haven’t quite put two and two together as to why the banksters are having to file millions of fraudulent documents in courts across the land, and how that directly correlates to the real and present danger to life as we know it, when the dirty little secret finally comes out of the closet, you know the one…that all the trusts are as empty as the witness chair you sit in.

    Of course you don’t have to believe me, or NG….there are plenty of high-ups that have acknowledged as much. Felix Salmon said, “You thought the foreclosure mess was bad? You’re right about that. But it gets so much worse (his perspective, not mine) once you start adding in a whole bunch of parallel messes in the world of mortgage bonds.

    For instance, as Tracy Alloway says, mortgage-bond documentation generally says that if more than a minuscule proportion of notes in a mortgage pool weren’t properly transferred, then the trustee for the bondholders can force the investment bank who put the deal together to repurchase the mortgages. And it’s looking very much as though none of the notes were properly transferred.

    http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/10/13/the-enormous-mortgage-bond-scandal/

    Gene, remember a little bit about what’s going on here….a quarter trillion dollars asked for in this one lawsuit isn’t chump change, even for Wall Street. This could seriously implode the entire ball of waxy financials across the globe, more like dominoes on a shaky table. And yet you make it out like it’s nothing….an extortion attempt? Are you fucking kidding me?

    Obama decided that as long as it’s only lowlife borrowers being adversely affected, the bubble over his head reads, “What, me worry?” Even if it is millions of so-called citizens losing their domiciles, better to serve the true constituents, the Wall Street campaign check-writers. Back to Salmon:

    “It also turns out that there’s a pretty strong case that they lied to the investors in many if not most of these deals. I mentioned this back in September, and I’ve been doing a bit more digging since then. And I’m increasingly convinced that the risk to investment banks isn’t only one of dodgy paperwork; there’s also a serious risk of massive lawsuits from the SEC or other prosecutors, as well as suits from individual mortgage investors.” (He wrote that back in 2010).

    Gene goes on to say, “As for NG, if his arguments about the loans never going into the Trust are so great, why didn’t PIMCO claim that? Of course, maybe their attorneys are not just as smart as NG.” Salmon touches on that as well….

    “….were the bond investors able to do their own due diligence on the loan pool? The answer is no, they weren’t — the prospectus did not include the kind of loan-level information which would enable them to do that.”

    Not to mention, I’d bet the farm that these billionaire investors have been cautioned/threatened quite heavily by those in gov not to pull on that tattered string coming out of Wall Street, for fear of causing – The Great Unraveling – TBTF – TBTJ.

    I’m quite sure that TPTB in Washington wouldn’t think twice about waterboarding even John Paulson, that is, after the next election is bought and paid for.

    Hope and change yet again. Rinse, repeat. Doom.

    Rev 2.0

  49. Discrimination lawsuit.

  50. Because the Judges Sherrifs District Attorneys Attorney Generals are either afraid of the banksters or are somehow in on it with them.
    It doesnt take a genius to figure this out. Or simply dont care They get paid anyways why would they help us?

    NEVER AGAIN

  51. Typos. I’ll try that again please,
    The FDIC
    have given me the run around – there’s reasons for that of course. And it’s time to hit them with FOIA suit. It’s long over due. 6 yr SOL folks
    Where’s the class actions on behalf of the people who were actually harmed

  52. Charles. I’m working it out the FDIC have given me hen run around, there’s teadins for that of course,

  53. Dont blame the Banksters Blame the Government who lets them get away with it.

    And if the Judge dont understand
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4

    NEVER AGAIN

  54. Deborah wynn all of the WaMu government loans were being handled by Wells Fargo and being foreclosed illegally as if Wells Fargo was the owner of the debt. The FDIC with this fake deal with JPMorgan that hide the fact of who was handling what!

  55. Louise it makes a complete mockery of the United States constitution
    ” life , liberty, property”
    They take your home under a string of lies perjury under oath and 3rd party attestations not to mention the economic harm done.

  56. Tired of Hearing about Countrywide, Bank Of America Has done a Great Job Stealing from Hard Working Americans all on Their Own.
    Where are The Labor Unions in This Fight ? Nothing To Say while Your Membership is “Destroyed” Financially ? Not For The Good of The Union when your own members are needlessly suffering!

  57. In my case all three assignments are fraudulent, forged, robo-signed and not representative of the “alleged” transaction.

  58. Folks what have I been telling you about the “holder in due course” for the last two years? Fannie took cover in DC & PA by ordering that all foreclosure are to be judicial and they provided more monies for attorney fees.

    The reason is that Fannie expected that all the loan they purchase to have endorsed Notes (not blank endorsements) and prepared assignment, but not record the assignment because they don’t need to be recorded if you purchase the Notes, but if you want to take action the assignment were due the day of the sale, so that if the loan fails the assignment can be recorded at any time. Fannie was saving monies as 98% of the loans were good performers and not need to spend monies recording something that was not going to be needed!

    However as there was not a question by the counties about the ownership and in most case, as the originator still had possession of the blank Notes, and would act as if there was never a securities pooling situation that 99.9% of the register had a clue about securities, so the non-judicial foreclosures were allowed.

    Now the State of Massachusetts is overturning 65,000 titles, the cat is out the bag what Fraud has taken place! MERS could not assign a single assignment and created Forgeries to trick the courts!

  59. It serves them right
    ,but why is no one in jail?

  60. How wonderful for the governments coffers….how many homeowners will benefit from this occurrence? None, I would venture to guess…

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: