ARE BONDHOLDERS LOOKING TO FIRE OCWEN?

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

============================

see Fund Manager’s Letter to Bondholders Detailing Sins of Ocwen

Chickens are coming home to roost. Just read the letter. Anyone who is litigating a case where Ocwen is involved in any way in the chain of title or ownership of the loan paperwork should read this in detail. This could be used as support for arguments that the books and records of the servicer or foreclosing party should not be given the luxury of certain legal presumptions. The presumption that there is in fact a servicing de fault called by the bondholders may enough to force the parties actually prove the nonexistent transactions about which their assignments and endorsements are written.

Why? That is the  question everyone should be asking. If Ocwen was not servicing for the benefit of the REMIC Trust (and the bondholders) then who are they really working for? Themselves? Or are they taking instructions from the underwriter who is also the Master Servicer that committed fraud in the first place on the investors and then on the borrowers, hiding behind the mask and layers of “originators,” “aggregators” and other conduits and sham entities? My opinion is that this is all part of the same scheme to distance themselves both from the transaction in which the bondholder gave money to the underwriter in exchange for the mortgage bonds and the “loans” that were funded not by the trust but directly from investor money that should have been given to the trust. And Ocwen’s selfish interest is to make the most out of “servicer advances” which is their cut of the pie — money that was actually advanced from investor money to pay them with their own money.

Here are some excerpts from the fund manager’s letter —

The facts establishing these Events of Default are irrefutable.  For example, Ocwen recently “stipulate[d]” and “agree[d]” in a consent order with the New York Department of Financial Services to violations of law and to engaging in imprudent servicing practices.  In addition, the California Department of Business Oversight has commenced proceedings to suspend Ocwen’s servicer license in California, a significant source of loans in the RMBS trusts that generate the advances that collateralize the payments to Noteholders.  These (and other) agencies’ findings and enforcement actions demonstrate Ocwen’s systemic, long-standing and continuing servicing failures and disregard of applicable and analogous laws.

I. Ocwen’s Violations of Law and Imprudent Servicing Practices

A. New York Investigations

Facts admitted by Ocwen establish multiple breaches of various covenants in the Transaction Documents and Designated Servicing Agreements and multiple defaults or Events of Default under the Indenture.  On December 19, 2014, Ocwen and Ocwen Financial Corporation admitted to facts that give rise to material breaches and defaults of the covenants and agreements in the above-referenced provisions.  Ocwen’s stipulations are memorialized in the Consent Order Pursuant to New York Banking Law § 44 (the “2014 Consent Order”) that Ocwen entered into with the New York State Department of Financial Services (“NYSDFS”).[3]  Specifically, the 2014 Consent Order sets forth numerous facts to which Ocwen has admitted

B. California Investigations

Two different California regulators have found that Ocwen violated California law.  On a webpage answering “frequently asked questions” related to Ocwen’s settlement with the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and attorneys general from 49 states and the District of Columbia (discussed below), the California Attorney General states, “[w]e believe that Ocwen violated federal and state laws against unfair and deceptive practices.  Ocwen’s unlawful conduct hurt consumers who have had home loans serviced by Ocwen, Litton, and Homeward.  For example, Ocwen made consumers pay improper fees and charges, caused unreasonable delays and expenses when consumers asked for help to avoid foreclosure, and wrongly refused to give consumers loan modifications that could have helped those consumers stay in their homes.”[6]

C. Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and State Attorneys General Investigation

Additionally, in December 2013, the federal Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) and the attorneys general for 49 states and the District of Columbia filed a Complaint against Ocwen and Ocwen Financial Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.[15]  The CFPB and state attorneys general alleged “violations” of (i) “state law prohibiting unfair and deceptive consumer practices with respect to loan servicing,” (ii) “state law prohibiting unfair and deceptive consumer practices with respect to foreclosure processing,” (iii) the Consumer Protection Act of 2010, 12 U.S.C. § 5481 et seq., “with respect to loan servicing,” and (iv) the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, 12 U.S.C. § 5481 et seq., “with respect foreclosure processing.”[16]  Specifically, the CFPB and the attorneys general alleged that Ocwen engaged in the following acts and practices:

D. Federal Monitor Investigation

On December 16, 2014, a monitor appointed in United States, et al. v. Bank of America Corp., et al., No. 12-CV-361 (D.D.C. 2012) (the “Federal Monitor”) issued the “Monitor’s Interim Report Regarding Compliance by Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC as Successor by Assignment from Defendants Residential Capital LLC, GMAC Mortgage LLC, and Ally Financial Inc. for the Measurement Periods Ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014” (the “Monitor Report”).  The Monitor Report addressed, among other things, the “independence, competency and capacity” of Ocwen’s internal quality control review group (“IRG”).  (Monitor Report at 7.)  According to the Federal Monitor, IRG’s processes and procedures “lacked the critical keys to integrity mandated in the Enforcement Terms [as defined in the Monitor Report],” namely “an internal quality control group that is independent from the line of business whose performance is being measured and an internal quality control group with the appropriate authority, privileges and knowledge to effectively implement and conduct the reviews and metric assessments contemplated in the Enforcement Terms.”  (Id. at 13 (quotations omitted).)  The Federal Monitor identified a “dysfunctional and chaotic working environment” during the first half of 2014, noting “serious problems and flaws in the processes and procedures” employed by the IRG.  (Id. at 13.)  Based on these findings, the Federal Monitor notified Ocwen that the IRG had not correctly implemented the Enforcement Terms in a number of “material respects.”  (Id. at 14.)

II. The Market Reaction

The rating agencies have cited the NYSDFS’s investigation of Ocwen as a reason for their downgrading of Ocwen’s servicer rating.  The rating downgrades have increased the risk that Ocwen will be terminated as a servicer and/or subservicer.[21]  For example, in October 2014—months before Ocwen signed the 2014 Consent Order—Standard & Poor’s downgraded Ocwen’s servicer rating to “average” following a letter by the NYSDFS to Ocwen “stating that during its review of Ocwen’s mortgage servicing practices it had uncovered serious issues with Ocwen’s systems and processes, including Ocwen’s backdating of potentially hundreds of thousands of foreclosure-related letters to borrowers.”[22]  Standard & Poor’s concluded that, based on the facts uncovered in the NYSDFS investigation, Ocwen’s “internal practices and policies may not meet industry or regulatory standards.”[23]  On October 22, 2014, Moody’s also downgraded its assessments of Ocwen “as a primary servicer of subprime residential mortgage loans to SQ3 from SQ3+ and as a special servicer of residential mortgage loans to SQ3 from SQ3+.”[24]  According to Moody’s, “[t]he assessment actions follow [the NYSDFS’] allegations,” which “also raise the risk of actions that restrict Ocwen’s activities, the levying of monetary fines against Ocwen, or additional actions that negatively affect Ocwen’s servicing stability.”[25]

50 Responses

  1. I’d like someone to answer: how do bond holders get to foreclose?

  2. David, well, you might do a chronology of alleged assignments / transfers and look for ones that couldn’t have happened (because of a prior assgt / transfer…….?

  3. Some clues about “should’ve known” and SofL:

    Whether plaintiffs exercised reasonable diligence
    in discovering their causes of action “is a question of fact to
    be determined by the jury or trial court after a full hearing.*
    Millspaugh v. Millspaugh, 96 Nev. 446, 448, 611 P.2d 201, 203
    (1980). ”

    *jg: note that doesn’t say the determination should be made on
    a mtn for SJ or to dismiss; it says after a full hearing.

    “Dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is only
    appropriate “`when uncontroverted evidence irrefutably
    demonstrates plaintiff discovered or should have discovered'”
    the facts giving rise to the cause of action. Nevada Power Co.
    v. Monsanto Co., 955 F.2d 1304, 1307 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting
    Mosesian v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 727 F.2d 873, 877 (9th
    Cir. 1984)).
    At this stage of the proceedings, there is no evidence to
    suggest that Kevin and Scott had any knowledge that would put them
    on inquiry notice to investigate potential claims”

  4. e.tolle – can you shoot me a link to the hearing as a pdf? If so, thanks.

  5. e.tolle, I don’t know what you do, but if it’s not writing or stand-up, you definitely missed your calling. I’m only part way thru and I’ve laughed out loud at least five times – thanks. Really.

  6. @JG, yeah, I remember Kemp well. It’s one of my favorite comedic tragedies, for BofA that is. I keep it next to my Mad magazine collection for when I need to crack myself up or just lighten the mood. I’ve been known to bring it out at cocktail parties. I can just imagine the BofA attorney shouting loudly in court, “I object, your honor! Conjecture! The witness has no…..” “But,” the judge says, “She’s your witness!” “Oh yeah, I forgot your honor.”

    It wasn’t just DiMartini, you’ll recall that another BofA expert Michele Sjolander testified to the exact same business model in a different case, that of holding onto the files instead of transferring them, as is usually done…oh…say….around 100% of the time.

    Here’s an excerpt from Kemp. Get some popcorn. My legal analysis is in italics….but this thing rocks all on its own…

    THE COURT: Well, let’s — let’s understand that if

    we accept the proposition that the lost note affidavit is of

    no moment, that the original document stayed in the possession

    of Countrywide Home Loan Servicing and was not endorsed as of

    the date that the proof of claim was filed, that is, no

    allonge was — no executed allonge was attached, you have

    neither possession by the owner of the note nor endorsement by

    the transferor, by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., how do you

    get over that? How do you solve that — those two problems?

    MR. KAPLAN (dry heaving uncontrollably):

    Your Honor, I don’t know specifically

    — I do know (suddenly realizing he feels way too alone as just I)

    — we do know that the — there was an allonge prepared

    (for some reason) because it was needed (for something or another).

    I can only tell you that this note, this –

    the back page of the mortgage appears to have an

    endorsement on it. It doesn’t say — it says “pay to the

    order of.” It’s blank. “Without recourse, Countrywide Home

    Loans,” and it’s signed, and it’s a rubber stamp, it says

    “David A. Spector, Managing Director.”

    THE COURT: What’s that?

    MR. KAPLAN: Your Honor, I can only tell you what

    the document says.(I’m just the lawyer you know!)

    I don’t know who Mr. Spector is. I would

    simply state, Your Honor, that, obviously, the intention of

    Countrywide to transfer the stock — the ownership interest to

    Bank of New York as Trustee, to the extent that that did not

    happen, then I would submit that Countrywide is still the

    holder of this paper and the party entitled to payment. (Come

    on your honor, don’t be such a stickler for legalities. Whose side are you on?)

    And while the Court may find that the proof of claim

    is — may be stricken

    (and I’ll be lucky to be wrapping fish soon with my JD diploma after this)

    because the party that allegedly filed

    it doesn’t have some type of standing, certainly, I think

    there’s still a party out there that has a right to enforce

    the document, no –

    (at that moment, BofA took out a better contract, a small red dot appeared on his chest)

    THE COURT: Well, is there a difference between

    enforcing the obligation and enforcing it as a secured

    obligation? In other words, Countrywide presumably could

    amend the proof of claim to reflect Countrywide Home Loans now

    — Inc. — now operating as, whatever their new —

    MR. KAPLAN: Bank of America, right.(Finally proud that he got something right for a change)

    THE COURT: — Bank of America, so they would have

    an obligation due to them, but that obligation would not

    translate to a secured obligation, isn’t that right, at least

    for our purposes in terms of this case?

    MR. KAPLAN: (adjusts necktie as it suddenly feels exactly like chafing rope)

    Well, they are — they have a security interest, Your Honor.

    There’s a validly perfected mortgage. (Please oh please say it’s so)

    THE COURT: Yes, but the mortgage —

    MR. KAPLAN: (Do we really have to discuss the mortgage, your honor? We were doing so well…. suddenly Kaplan’s breakfast burrito lunges northward, seeking its day in court)

    The debtor testified he signed the mortgage.

    THE COURT: — is in the name — the mortgagee is

    Bank of New York as Trustee for CWA whatever.

    MR. KAPLAN: Well, I — obviously, Your Honor, there

    was a — to the extent that the documents weren’t transferred

    in the ordinary course pursuant to the Uniform Commercial

    Code, there is an issue. (Kaplan suddenly wishes his parents had never met)

    I don’t — I don’t understand maybe why the document

    — the mortgage effectively can’t be assigned back to Countrywide

    (and how Santa delivers all those packages all around the world).
    They’re still the holder of the note. The

    debtor acknowledges that he signed the note and mortgage. He

    doesn’t contest the validity of the note and the mortgage.

    (Really your honor, if you look at the documents

    from a distance while slanting your eyes they all look fine!)

    THE COURT: So I’m to hypothesize that there could

    be a reassignment?

    MR. KAPLAN: Well, I believe (in unicorns and) that the parties

    involved need to remediate the problem so long as the Court is

    of the mind to allow them to do that, (typically called a Mulligan)

    and either Countrywide

    needs to have the mortgage reassigned to it (that’s wishful thinking #1),

    because it shouldn’t have assigned the mortgage to Bank of New York

    in that it didn’t transfer the note in accordance with the

    Uniform Commercial Code, and, therefore, both note and

    mortgage need to be sent back to Countrywide so that they can

    enforce their obligation and mortgage. (That’s wishful thinking #2, as he crams his own foot down his throat while poking his eyeball with his pen)

    THE COURT: There’s been no motion to that effect,

    no —

    MR. KAPLAN: I understand, Your Honor. I’m simply

    saying that that seems to be a way to remediate or to allow at

    least Countrywide, if not Bank of New York, to proceed

    accordingly. (Otherwise your honor, I’ll have to go back to school for hotel/motel management….)

    THE COURT: Well, that’s hypothetical, and I — I

    don’t rule on it.

    MR. KAPLAN: Well, I understand, Your Honor. But

    all I’m saying is, if you’re asking — if your ruling was to

    disallow the claim, I assume that that is — I’m assuming, but

    I may be wrong, a hundred percent wrong — that that is not

    invalidating the mortgage and the right of a party to enforce

    that mortgage at some point, maybe not in this Court as far as

    payment of a claim, but as far as expungement from the county

    record that there’s no longer a lien on the property, that

    would be a complete lack of equity in the sense of unjustly

    enriching the debtor. (And please reverse my alimony settlement to zero while I’m shooting for broke!)

    THE COURT: Well, clearly, there’s a real issue

    about what happens down the road. I rule on what’s

    immediately in front of me.

    MR. KAPLAN: I understand.

    THE COURT: And that’s my task. Are you aware, Mr.

    Kaplan, that the brief that was submitted cited the wrong UCC

    provision? By that I mean, 3-309 was cited as a basis for the

    opportunity of Countrywide as master servicer to enforce this

    obligation, and the New Jersey version of 3-309 is different

    than the UCC version that was cited.

    MR. KAPLAN: (Biting down hard on the cyanide capsule between his teeth)

    No, I’m not aware of that, Your Honor. (Oopsie!)

    THE COURT: It’s amazing how sloppy this

    presentation was, and I’m very disappointed about that.

    (Kaplan completes the Snidely moustache he’s been drawing on his stick judge, all the while imagining his new role as BofA’s C-suite restroom manager)

    Anyway — all right. Well, thank you, Mr. Kaplan. Do you

    want to present testimony? Does it matter, you know, because

    there is no testimony regarding possession by Bank of New York

    as Trustee, correct? (Not to mention that you’d best get back to your office and search the world wide web for menial minimum wage jobs…)
    MR. KAPLAN: That’s correct, Your Honor. I’m not

    disputing that. That’s what Ms. DeMartini testified to, that

    the note — she had no record of this note leaving and going

    across country, across wherever, (it’s such a long, long way ya’ know!)

    to Bank of New York. (Kaplan decides to twist the knife grip sticking into his own bloody chest)

    THE COURT: And you do understand as well that the

    Pooling and Servicing Agreement requires that transfer, that

    physical transfer of the note in accordance with — and

    endorsement — in accordance with UCC requirements?

    MR. KAPLAN: I understand that, Your Honor. I’ll

    simply say for the sake of edification, but this is — and I

    was told it was all e-filed — this is apparently the index to

    this Master Servicing Agreement showing all the loans and it

    does reference the Kemp loan. It’s a double-side document,

    includes all the loans. (It came over the internet, it must be true!)

    And I can say that, although Your Honor is right and

    the UCC and the Master Servicing Agreement apparently requires that,

    (if we were to really dot all the i’s and cross all those damn t’s)

    procedure seems to indicate that they don’t physically

    move documents from place to place because of the fear of loss

    and the trouble involved and the people handling them. (Your Honor, do you know how much work that is? And how scary!)

    They basically execute the necessary documents and retain them as

    long as servicing’s retained. The documents only leave when

    servicing is released.

    THE COURT: They take their chances.

    MR. KAPLAN: I understand, Your Honor.

    Kaplan leaves the courtroom, upset that he only wore one Depends.

  7. @ johngault , @ E. ToLLe,

    I went looking for Countrywide as custodian and found their acquisition of “Treasury Bank” sometime in 2001.

    Treasury Bank seems to have been associated with “Effinity”, whether they are a corporation or some other entity, I don’t know.

    I read on Matt Weidener’s blog where one attorney claimed there is no such thing as “Treasury Bank”. I was going to copy it but I lost the link and my computer has been acting up lately.

    I am not an attorney, but, I do believe a number of legal verbiage needs to be met before the trust, as lawful recipient to the title, as, “Holder In Due Course” must be met for the debt to remain viable…

    Things like, “negotiation”, “transfer”, “possession”, etc.; as well as other, legal mumbo-jumbo.

    One of you guys wrote about the Latin phrase, “Nemo Dat”; the notion an entity must properly physically possess something before they can pass it off to a third party to the deal…

    I feel this is the essence of Carpenter v Longan and it reinforces the belief of John Adams that property is a sacred right not subject to false claims, forgery, denial of discovery; due process etc.

    People in distressed property proceedings are, after all, involved in proceedings taking place in “courts of equity”. As such, these hearings should go forward with each party subject to equal rights under the law…

    Of course, we all know that is anything but the truth.

  8. JOHNGAULT, THIS IS WHY , THERE’S A BIG DEAL ABOUT THIS DEAL.
    GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, AS LENDER ON MORTGAGE AND NOTE

    1/ GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION HASN’T EXISTED FROM 2006!!!

    2/ AS I KNOW NOW THAT , DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST CO, AMERICAS DID , FUND THIS LOAN AT CLOSING, BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER DOC’S IN CLOSING FILE SHOWING ANY ONE ELSE THAT PUT MONEY ON THE TABLE!

    3/ NOW AFTER GETTING GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION TO SEND ME IN 2011 A COPY OF MY FILE AND MORTGAGE AND NOTE. I HAVE A COPY OF A MORTGAGE NOTE THAT SAY’S THE FOLLOWING, IT’S A STAMP, AND SIGN BY D.CHIODO,ASSISTANT SECRETARY GMAC MORTGAGE CORP, DATED 11/8/2005 THE SAME DAY AS WE SIGN MORTGAGE/NOTE!!!

    4/ PAYED TO THE ORDER OF
    DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, WITHOUT RECOURSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    5/ OUR LOAN WAS SECURITIED, I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I HAVE ALL DOC’S ,PSA,COLLECTAL LOAN FILE TO SECURITIED TRUST SHOWING MY LOAN NUMBER IN IT.

    6/ NOW I ALSO HAVE THE MORTGAGE PURCHASE DOC’S FROM SEC. DATED 2/27/2006 , WITH GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION SELLING ALL INTEREST IN AND FOR ALL MORTGAGES AND MORTGAGE NOTES TO . RESIDENTUAL ASSET MORTGAGE, INC.

    7/ SO GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION , AFTER 2/27/2006, DOES NOT AND COULD NOT HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO DO WITH OUR MORTGAGE, AS A OWNER OF THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE, THAT THEY COULD NOT SAY ITS A PART OF THERE ASSETS.

    8/ NOW , RESIDENTUAL ASSET MORTGAGE INC, SELLS ALL MORTGAGES AND NOTES TO TRUST. ITS CALLED,
    GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-J1. NOW TRUST SUPPOSED TO OWN ALL MORTGAGES AND NOTES FOR THE BENFIT OF INVESTORS.

    9/ NOW TRUST SELL’S CERTIFICATES IN THE NAME OF A NEW TRUST. THAT TRUST IS CALL.
    GMACM MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES , SERIES 2006 J-1. MY MORTGAGE IS IN THE MORTGAGE LOAN FILE OF THIS TRUST…..

    10/ NOW COMES FIRST ASSIGNMENT THAT WAS IN REGISTRYS OFFICE IN MASS. DATED 20 AUGUST 2012..!!!!!!

    ASSIGNMENT WAS FROM MERS AS NOMINEE FOR GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ASIGN TO WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006 J-1. ONLY 6 YRS AFTER THE TRUST CLOSED. 2/27/2006..!!

    11/ GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION,STOP EXSISTING IN 2006, AS A CORPORATION OR ANYTHING ELSE. WERE WOULD MERS GET AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN ANYTHING FROM THEM, THEY SOLD THE LOANS TO SOMEONE ELSE ALREADY,

    12/ PLUS , GMAC MORTGAGE, RESCAP/ RESIDNETUAL ASSET MORTGAGE WERE IN BANKRUPRTY IN APRIL, 2012.

    I COULD GO ON AND ON AN ON. SO WHO OWN WHAT??????????????? WHO HAS RIGHT TO FORECLOSE?????
    AS THEY ARE TRYING UNDER THE TRUST. 6 YRS TO LATE. TRUST CANT GET A LOAN INTO IT 6 YRS AFTER TRUST CLOSING!!!!!

  9. If non-delivery gave the trusts a mere security interest by way of the default law UCC (which defeats the trust being a trust for lack of true sale, I think, or at least it has security interests as its only assets),* I think the question is: may the endentured party (“A”) satisfy his security interest by assigning / transferring the object of the security interest, the note and dot, to the dominant party (can’t think of the right word)? I’m pretty sure the answer is normally no – but this is as between the two of them (if THEY were litigating. I think the law would say nice try, but you, endentured party, owe the entire face amt – mol – less any payments made). And no secured party in its right mind would normally want to accept the object of the security when 1) the collateral for that object of security has diminished monstrously in its value, meaning the dominant party would take the hit instead of the endentured party, and 2) the object of the security was a loan in default, and 3) accepting the transfer would shatter a beneficial status, in this case, the benefit being the only reason for its existence.
    *Omg. i just realized that if the UCC would find, as I believe it does, that non-delivery makes one a mere secured party (v owner), it may be that the trust, as a matter of law, ISN’T in fact a secured party because it cannot be, like you or i could be. I’m not talking doesn’t want to be; I’m talking cannot be. In which case, they’d be really messed. I DON’T know this, but it reads. If so, the trusts have billions of reasons, including possible taxation on funds already received, not to holler. That would explain why they’re not using the UCC and hollering, at least to me (because if this is true, they’re owed – as individuals – the face amt of the endentures less payments made BUT they have zero tax shelter and isn’t the tax then really ghastly? Makes me wonder if this is what tarp funds were meant to do – cover those lost amounts. Now this is really dark – that could make at least some of the investor v bankster suits a dog and pony show for our collective benefit. I don’t really believe this; it just crossed my mind)
    If the secured party scenario is true, so trusts won’t sqwauk, then we’re back at following tortured trails to prove / find something where even if proven we can’t recite the so what with any authority. Or maybe some of us can and I didn’t get the memo. I say fwiw if we wants to beat this now that they’re having the unmitigated gall to allege that these loans are being transferred to (closed) trusts, we’re at challenging what we can, where imo we’ll find help in business law and rules of evidence.

  10. May I ask what one thinks the fact of B funding a loan for A is good for?
    If you had evidence of a wire to closing from B for a loan on which A is the named payee, I guess I’m looking for the “so?” Does everyone think that makes A not the lender? For one thing, this has been going
    on since mud, well before securitization and I think it was hoyle. The only wrinkle might be, I think, is if a loan were funded by trust investor funds. Is that what is being looked for? In that case, wouldn’t it be
    that the loan was made with converted funds – or ? – and then what does anyone think that means? As to conversion, I just read that conversion (not saying this would be the name of that act) requires party X to make use of Y’s fund to the exclusion of Y’s benefit, so using those funds, at least as to conversion, has to result in Y not
    benefitting (and I would imagine this means benefitting 100%, to the penny). But more the question is, what does that mean as to the
    borrower? What cause of action etc. is created? Didn’t NG start this whole deal based on his belief that the investor funds were used to
    fund our loans? What name does he give this? What’s the so what?
    They violated NY trust law, the trusts are void, they’re thieves, loan made with stolen and or converted funds? Okay, say all the above is true. What’s the ‘so what’ as to the validity of the note and its obligation? And who then, if anyone, may enforce such a note?

    Does it go like this:
    B took the investors’ money and funneled it thru (say) 3 channels down to the closing table. B wouldn’t do that on any verbals imo, so loan contracts were created between B down the channels. By the time the funds got to the closing table, the payee on the note believed the
    funds were appropriately (by its contract with last channel guy) coming from the last guy in the channel, so the payee made the loan in good
    faith, didn’t he? I can’t say about the guys in the channel, though of course their knowledge of source of funds (which was the investors) is suspect.
    The, well one, distinction about this kind of pilfering (from say a pension fund or any kind of non-NY-trust investment account), of course, is that the investors already would’ve funded loans they are now allegedly buying AND those purchases (collectively for all the trust isms) are cast in stone. About 4 years ago, I tried to give that some perspective, but I can’t today. If anyone cares to try, you might take out the trust aspect (and just go with B took funds intended for something else and trickled those funds down to the closing table), determine the ramifications of that (“that”: as described in the para above), then put back in the trust aspect and see where the dust settles……?

    I don’t remember all those discussions from way back when, but I do remember thinking that if the loans weren’t transferred to the trusts,
    but the trusts paid for them (never minding just here the source of loan
    funds), the trusts only had security interests in the loans as a matter of law. For this one, too, imo, you have to take out the “trust-factor”, look at how the (default law) UCC treats notes where payment was made but there was no delivery of the note, and then add back in the NY trust factors. The reason the default law UCC is in here is because there were contracts which weren’t adhered to. That’s a time when the law turns to the UCC to define / determine the rights and status of the parties. It says who is entitled to enforce and so on. But just say that the UCC does in fact find the investors with security rights (v ownership). What is the path for enforcement of such a note? The determination has to be done with full consideration these are notes that are (just say because that’s its own hornet’s nest) secured by real property and not cars or any other personal property, and accordingly, those parts of the UCC have to be included (as well as foreclosure laws I think).
    I don’t remember all the details, but I recalll thinking that it was better for the trusts to play along than to holler about non-delivery because it would or could diminish their return, if any. But we don’t care just now about their return if any. We care about the validity of the loans and if valid, who may enforce. I don’t think we can reach this, I’m sorry to say. I think it takes a village of UCC and NY trust scholars working together and that’s why my money is on business law and the rules of evidence to defeat bs non-evidence, non-admissable affidavits and alleged but legally non-existant relationships, etc. fwiw. And i could be dead wrong. D Wynn is fighting, for example, probably using some stuff from this site, and apparently making some headway. Kudos btw.

  11. elexquisitor said
    “Without discovery of documents reflecting the transfer of (legal) possession by transit or bailment the owner / beneficiary of the original promissory note remains a question. Bailment is a voucher arrangement used to relate the custodian of the note to subsequent owners from assignments of the note.”
    thing is in my case it is a pertinent issue too, im posting for others and to instigate their own pertinent research per their case. Remember its only one point.
    “Bailment describes a legal relationship in common law where physical possession of personal property, or a chattel, is transferred from one person (the ‘bailor’) to another person (the ‘bailee’) who subsequently has possession of the property. It arises when a person gives property to someone else for safekeeping, and is a cause of action independent of contract or tort.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailment :
    “In bailment, the physical possession of personal property or a chattel is transferred from the bailor to the bailee who subsequently has possession of the property. Generally, it is for safekeeping. Bailment is a cause of action independent of contract or tort”

  12. USEDKARGUY, THERE WAS NO COPY OF THE CHECK, AS I THINK THERE WAS NO CHECK THE ATTORNEY GOT..

    THIS IS WHAT IT SAYS ON IT.

    COMMERCE BANK AND TRUST
    —————————————————————————————–

    INCOMING WIRE-ADVICE OF CREDIT,

    LAW OFFICE OF ACCOUNT # ****2739
    RICHARD J RAFFERTY PC
    MA IOLTA COMMITTEE
    19 NORWICH ST
    WORCESTER,MA 01608-2413

    DATE: 11/14/2005

    AMOUNT: $ 343,740.72
    TRANSACTION FEE $ 0.00
    GFX REF #: 20053180005600
    IMAD#: 20051114B1Q8384C005252
    OMAD#: 20051114L1LFB55C00003711140911FT01

    —————————————————————————————–
    Additional payment details are shown below:

    SENDER FINANCIAL INSTITUTION NAME: DBTCO AMERICAS NYC
    ABA: 021001033
    ORIGINATING PARTY(ORG) NAME: NOTHING THERE!!!!
    address: nothing there!!!!!
    BENEFICIARY PARTY(BNF) NAME:LAW OFFICE OF RAFFERTY
    ACCT# ****2739
    BENEFICIARY’S FIN.INST. (BBK) NOTHING THERE!!!!!!!

    REFERENCE FOR BENEFICIARY (RFB) 14900589117308

    ORIGINATOR TO BENEFICIARY INFO ( OBI )
    T ATTY REVIEW WILLIAM A MARSHALL SR
    9 RODMAN AVENUE SHIRLEY MA 01464

    BANK TO BANK INFORMATION ( BBI )
    this fax message is for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may
    contain CONFIDENTIAL and PRIVILEGED information. Any
    Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. if you
    are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by phone or
    fax AND DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THIS ORIGINAL MESSAGE.

    LIKE I SAID BEFORE, ANY AND ALL CHECKS CAME FROM OUR ATTORNEYS CHECK BOOK…EVEN THE CHECK THAT WAS SENT TO OTHER BANK TO PAY OFF EQUITY LINE . THERE IS NOTHING I CAN SEE THAT WOULD SAY SHOW THAT GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION AS OUR LENDER IN ALL DOC’S , GAVE ANY MONEY IN FUNDING THIS LOAN.

    I WILL BE ASKING FOR ALL THAT IN MY COMPLAINT. IF THEY CANT SHOW A ACCOUNT THAT ANY MONEY THEY SAY CAME FROM THEM TO FUND THIS LOAN, ITS A SHAM… THAT GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SHOW WHERE THE MONEY CAME FROM.

  13. Without discovery of documents reflecting the transfer of (legal) possession by transit or bailment the owner / beneficiary of the original promissory note remains a question. Bailment is a voucher arrangement used to relate the custodian of the note to subsequent owners from assignments of the note.

  14. e.tolle – it was employee dimartini in Kemp who stated that CW retained the notes. But I’m not sure that’s the same case wherein it was allegedly demonstrated that CW was the custodian (think an allegation was made, but that’s all I got). Got anything? I got this from a quick online search (otherwise my files are a lot like yours). What I’m interested in is based on what was it determined that CW was the custodian. But I’m not on a mission, per se. Just like to see it, least for now.

    http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/11/22/bank-of-america-mortgage-document-errors-trouble-countrywide/

  15. Hey David b., was that Deutsche Bank funding check a draft disguised as a cashier’s check?

  16. And in all fairness to Ivent,

    She’s imploding and is very close to pulling a cube2k. That would only be the second tragedy LL witnessed for want of a cohesive, nationwide action.

    “On 12/29/14 Ogle County Sheriff’s Deputies arrested Linda A. Venturella, age 51 of Oak Forest, at the Ogle County Court House. Venturella was arrested on an outstanding warrant for Resisting Peace Officer. She posted the $3,000.00 (10%) bond, was released, and will appear in court on 12/31/14 at 1:00 PM.”

    http://truenewsusa.blogspot.com/2014/06/linda-venturella-leads-four-police.html

  17. Five years following this blog and other ones. The conclusion is increasingly limpid:

    1) Once upon a time, there were rules on managing money: giving away some (tithe or taxes, to benefit the entire community with projects beyond individual means which would be beneficial to all), investing some, saving some and spending some. Everybody playing by the rules was always winning.
    2) The rules were changed but no one following them was told about it. Everyone kept playing along, since it had proved to work very well for so long.
    3) Because the rules had changed, unbeknownst to the players, the results started changing. The odds of winning for the players were getting thinner. Oh well! The players figured: “It’s because the new players refused to learn the rules. It’s only fair that they would lose. We know the rules work. We’ll keep playing and the rebels will shape up and learn as we did. Everything will work out in the end.”
    4) More and more players would lose. And listening to them, they knew the rules and they could show that they had followed them all along.
    5) The people started wondering: “Why is it that, even though they were following the rules, the sky fell on them?” The people still kept on following the rules: the sky had not yet fallen onto them. They had nothing to fear by playing by the rules and Someone was going to take notice and figure out what the problem was with those apparent rule-followers who got in trouble.
    6) The Someones who were supposed to start noticing were the same exact same people who had changed the rules and told no one in the first place. There was no way They were going to say anything: They were making fortunes keeping quiet and keeping the rule-followers guessing.
    7) The people said: “Those who should take notice don’t seem able to. We need to replace them.”
    8) So, the people who were following the rules decided to vote out the people who were supposed to enforce the rules and replace them with new ones from a very old stock of failed ones: there were no young ones to choose from. You see, the people who followed the rules still believed that they would find enforcers of the rules, somewhere, with moral courage and balls.
    9) By the time the people did conduct the elections, balls nationwide had melted like ice cream in the sun (blame Fukushima, Monsanto or fluoride if you want. The point is: there were no balls left in sight). Everyone they elected was acting exactly like the one they replaced. And the people said: “There is a definite shortage of balls.”
    10) And the people gathered on blogs and lamented, day and night: “We cannot find balls and our situation isn’t getting any better. What shall we do? Where do we go to find balls?”
    11) And God said: “Look down into your own briefs. See some? It’s called “courage”. Use it or lose it. Attack when you truly believe you can affect change for everyone. Balls only work on the offensive. On the defensive, they retract. Funny little trick I played on humanity.”

    And the people said: “Well, we still have too much to lose by attacking today. Let us think about it. Besides, we still can’t see eye to eye on whether to attack and how to attack. Kinda busy right now managing sensitivities: you know how managing sensitivities is, right? Full time job: everyone is a special case to take into consideration. The logistics to accommodate everyone take time. And energy. A lot of it.”

    And God said: “No balls here. Moving on.” That was 5 years ago… and people still haven’t done anything. Still trying to figure out CW. Pathetically amazing…

  18. So in other words, e.tolle, any “evidence” that CW was the custodian for some trusts came from CW? That isn’t evidence, if so. “Custodian” is a relationship (master-servant mol). It does fall on the proponent (CW) to prove the relationship existed (meaning one opposed doesn’t have the burden of disproving the relationship), BUT the proof must come from the master. CW isn’t able to establish the relationship by its own testimony. imo. And if I may, this is just part of the “business law” I’m advocating. But then, we all know, they will just come up with some bs affidavits allegedly signed by so and so as
    the such and such of some trust or 10. Well, then we might turn to the best evidence rule. An affidavit isn’t the best evidence, not even close. The best evidence in my lay opinion is the original contract which created the relationship (and which also lays out / defines the scope of that relationship). It’s FRCP 1002, I think. They will prob try to argue
    this (prob non-existant) contract has been lost (like the notes before that duck wouldn’t hunt), but the subject matter is so significant, even most of us who read decision after decision might see that a court couldn’t buy that copies don’t exist. It might take someone at the head of the class (business litigator) to argue these issues (beyond who must prove the relationship because i think that’s black letter law), at least once it’s established (by black letter law) that the master must establish the relationship and exactly what does. CW’s ‘doc specialist’s testimony is no more than commentary. IMO.
    I don’t know if this is all a result of bribery as you say (it’s gotta be the result of some kind of bs), but one way or another, also as you say, it sucks. As a kid, I entered a competition to write about “what my American patriotism means to me”. I couldn’t write it today, and yeah, that’s pretty sad.

  19. JG wrote, “Does anyone here know what it was that demonstrated that CW was the custodian for anyone else?”

    Do you mean besides that industry hack Gene’s attestations here of late?

    The following doesn’t get right to your answer, but it follows up on a lot that I, for one, have been arguing a lot here lately (with Gene) i.e. the non-transfer of collateral files to the trusts, creating what Adam Levitin called non mortgage backed securities.

    It’s at first funny, then incredibly sad and troubling, then scarily telling that the following document authored by one of our state’s highest law enforcement agencies is so heavily redacted as to be nearly lacking in facts, heavy in innuendo, and creating an escape route for CW against borrower litigation. The fact that every single one of our so called representatives e.g. AGs….FBI….Justice (or lack thereof)….IRS….all the way up to the Commander in Thief….will all bend over backwards to accept their bribes, call them contributions if you want to warp the English language beyond recognition…..in a democracy (please don’t argue republic v demo stuff here, it all belongs in the same gripe) the elected officials along with the appointed ones would all serve their constituents, NOT the corporate masters.

    What purpose does it serve to cut all of the borrower-side information out of these findings? Absolutely nothing save for making it easier for the bad guys to skate yet again. The Schneiderman paper below complains about tens – o – thousands of illegal foreclosures occurring due to the fraudulent practices by CW and BNYM, and then redacts the entire guts of the story. We, the people, are seen as necessary fodder when it comes to those who wear $3K suits and sit in ivory towers, swapping jobs across the street as need be.

    Back to your question about CW as custodian, I have in my PC files somewhere a case in Florida from several years ago where a document specialist (I use that term very lightly) for CW attempted to explain in deposition how CW had built rooms inside their facility that then became almost like sovereign space, like how embassies exist in foreign lands, thus allowing CW to simply walk the file 50’ down the hall to execute the file transfer as per PSA rules. This was an obvious ploy on CW’s part to make it look like they could claim legal transfer after the fact, even though no one would ever be allowed in to know any different. I’d search for that case as it’s a good read, but it’s in an area of my computer that looks just like that final scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark with rows and rows of crap piled to the ceiling, and fat chance of me finding it before the Doomsday clock runs down to zero.

    It’s a big file that follows, but it doesn’t take anytime to get to the crime and the cover-up through redaction.

    NY AG’s Pleading in Intervention Bank of America’s Big 8.5 Billion Country Wide Settlement Schneiderman

  20. Maybe this will help someone. It’s about defenses and counter-claims available to make in a response which would have otherwise been
    barred by the statute of limitations. Just search Equitable Recoupment for tons of info.

    “It is well settled law throughout the United States that the statute of limitations does not apply to an affirmative defense or an affirmative counterclaim of equitable recoupment. This principle of law is universally recognized and is typically quoted in almost identical terms in major treatises and cases that discuss it. A few examples are the following:

    Recoupment, being in the nature of the defense arising out of some feature of the transaction upon the which the Plaintiff’s action is grounded, survives the expiration of the period provided by a statute of limitation that otherwise would bar the recoupment claim as an independent cause of action. In other words, if the Plaintiff’s action is timely, the defense of recoupment may be asserted even if the same claim, as an independent cause of action, would be barred by a statute of limitations.”

    And, actually, it may be that even if the SOL has expired as to a TILA
    violation, one could still assert the violation as a defense (or counter-claim?) as/in equitable recoupment. I sure hope so because despite what Gene said, I’m standing by what I said about high percentages of APR’s being wrong on (esp) teaser-rate loans. I have to say if this particular one is possible, I’m gonna laugh my head off. And I’m getting it that even after three years, then, no one would have to come up with
    why one didn’t know (“should’ve known”) within those three years.

  21. to louise: paperwork in my possession has Wells Fargo as lender, New Century as lender, RBC as lender, on 3 different HUD statements, with Credit Suisse and Weichart as sellers after bk filing by New Century (notes, multiple sales).

    Then per hearing, Delaware Federal BK court, servicers include: New Century, SPS, Carrington, Ocwen…dates do not match and Ocwen is claiming they bought AND were assigned the note too, acting as attorney in fact for New Century from 2005-2012, now they are debt collectors, with a zero balance on the ledger.

    Claiming defaults on January 2007 (not originated yet, affidavits in hand), also claiming a default in September 2007…Ocwen said they acquired the note that way (thought they were serving)…on October 01, 2007 (less than 30 days after the second default?). All in sworn affidavits or transcripts from multiple courts.

    2 judges threw out the case in NC, after filing an injunction at the District Court where Ocwens attorney tries to pull a fast one and get a SJ, with a Federal case pending (ocwens lawyer removed the case himself to Federal Court, not me), trying to go to the other court and get relief. Both courts said: nah, try again.

    And I have read, notes were fractionally sold. Per data sheet, memory doesn’t serve at the moment.

    It’s fine to look at paperwork generated through the court, but can it be trusted is the thing AND how about ALL the rules that have been broken to make things appear legal and legitimate?

    My take: if you broke the rule, either fix it or get out of my court. The rules are theirs, not mine. I am just asking the court to follow what is in place. If we did the same, shinny cuffs would brace our wrists.

  22. I zone in on what i can prove and the evidence i have – not what i dont have, The evidence they submitted can not be relied upon.

  23. @ david belanger,

    I commend you on appearing in your attorneys office to collect the file… I hope you did so unannounced…

    And, whether you showed up unexpectedly or not, I feel every person that owns a mortgage in this country and beyond, should do precisely that.

    In my experience, “our own attorney” denied us evidence that didn’t come into our possession until shortly after his death.

    When I explained it was our intention to sue the mortgage company due to the treatment we received at closing, he told us “we didn’t have a chance”, “the mortgage companies manipulate people all the time”, “what evidence can you use to back up your complaint?”.

    Of course, while he was lying to us, the “evidence” we needed was deliberately concealed, while safely tucked in his file all along.

    I often consider the galactic conclusions that may be inferred due to his death, as a relatively young man, from tongue cancer…

  24. And yes im in a “nonjudicial” State

  25. Amount of debt owed on 1099a issued by the SERVICER ( claimed LENDER) is 91,000usd UNDER that Claimed in the recorded trustees deed upon sale, ( thats 91k added on to the claimed debt owed)
    Im pressing this in court it is evidence of serious questions of facts that the court originally presumed true – amongst other things.

  26. usedkarguy – On the 29th, you mentioned LPS’s problems with practicing law, and I’m sure glad to hear it. Hugely. When the legislators approved non-j foreclosure, which as we know doesn’t require judicial involvement, they imo carved out a rare exception – sort of – to the issue of practicing law. I haven’t been able to lay my hands on any committee notes, etc for the dot (v mortgage), so all I can say as fact is back then, title companies were the dot trustees. Title companies have staff attorneys and they’re the ones who made decisions. And they didn’t have 500 employees. They had a manageable number of workers for whom they made decisions. I got my first real estate license in 1977 (yeah I’m an oldie) and until the advent of mers, title companies were our friends. They offered support and direction and often helped resolve “issues” is the only way I know to say it. I’m not being dramatic when I say what’s become of that industry is depressing. It’s like they’ve all adapted a kill or be killed stance. At any rate, somehow the matter of who may serve as a dot trustee has been devolved to where it’s just about anyone with a pulse. I know that’s a somewhat tired expression, but it’s nonetheless true. That wasn’t enough, apparently, so now trustees, already just about anyone, purport to have attorneys in fact or call someone else some other name which is meant to establish ostensible authority. From the trustee to the people they hire to do stuff for them, none of them have any pedigree to be doing what they’re doing. And making it worse, the attorneys representing the lenders these days often or at least sometimes own the companies being called trustee. That’s a messed up deal.
    The dot was implemented to save lenders the time and cost of
    judicial foreclosure. They got a grand gift and have abused it to no end. It’s a trust which is formed in and by the dot, but the trustee now acts only for the (purported) lender and not the trustor, the borrower. It’s the same as having a ref on the field who works for the Seahawks in a game against the Patriots (or anyone). Plus, that ref has no football pedigree whatsoever. Even where a trustee representing only the beneficiary has been sanctioned (think that’s true here and there, which is another messed up deal), he still should have the pedigree.
    Some states have devolved the legislative intent so badly, they now allow for an agent of the beneficiary (v the dot trustee) to foreclose. There was supposed to be someone with the pedigree between the ben and the borrower and there isn’t. It’s an outrage and makes the playing field entirely uneven and there is, then, imo no point whatsoever in having a “trustee” in a dot. What that in turn means is there’s really no deed of TRUST and no reason to have a dot. All we’ve got is an agreement for which there is no viable conflict resolution for one of its parties and no one at all to speak for that party. I wish I knew what there is to do about it.
    Maybe the LPS thing you mentioned will shine a light on some of these patent inequities.

  27. The servicers/lenders create documents and debt amounts out of thin air. As I have said before, the notes are sold more than once. None of it is accurate as they think it does not need to be accurate. They are operating outside the law anyway, and nobody does anything about it except fine them once in a while. If they were getting time like Bernie Madoff, this mess would be going away.

  28. Does anyone here know what it was that demonstrated that CW was the custodian for anyone else? Or a case where it was alleged CW was the custodian? thanks

  29. I absolutely agree, Steve. The rats are starting to leave the sinking ships.

  30. could someone please explain something to me, wouldn’t this be true.

    my loan is in this gmacm mortgage pass-through certificates,series 2006 j-1, my mortgage number is part of the collateral statement sheet on sec site, ISSUING ENTITY was a trust as gmacm mortgage loan trust 2006-j1,

    it also states that there will be a trust made , as to these gmacm pass-through certificates.

    so question , if i have doc’s from SEC,showing my mortgage in this pass-through certificates series 2006 j1, then i would think i would be in that trust. and not the selling trust of gmacm mortgage loan trust 2006 j1. ????

    also, in that SEC DOC’S, it shows something funny, the following statement is on doc’s.

    orignial LOAN AMOUNT, LOAN AMOUNT,
    350,000 349,349,79

    ISSUE DATE BALANCEPAID TO DATE.
    349,349.79

    SO AS I SEE IT, ON THE ISSUE DATE OF 1 FEB 2006 , ALL MORTGAGE LOANS THEY WERE SELLING. THEY SHOWED ALL LOANS PAID OFF AS OF ISSUE DATE. ????

    A BALANCEPAID IS A BALANCE PAID!!!!!! I.E I CALL A BANK AND GET THE BALANCE TO A LOAN, THEY SAY, 349,349,79 OK SO I PAY IT OFF. THEN I GET STATEMENT SAYING BALANCEPAID TO DATE IS 349,349.79. GIVIN ME A 0 BALANCE DUE.

    NOW going further down this offer on the certificates they are also selling all mortgage loans for the inflated appraisal price on the propertys. mine was 500,000. and they sold my property in this certificate for that amount. 500,000. so WHO IN THERE RIGHT MIND WOULD PAY 500,000 DOLLARS FOR A LOAN THAT WAS 350,000 DOLLARS???? THINK ABOUT THAT?????

    DJABELANGER@HOTMAIL.COM

  31. I owned a little mortgage business for years and always braced for a juiced payoff statement compliments of the berserk mouth breathers of Ocwen.

    Those mega morons will wreck everything they are anywhere near and are the absolute worst-worst-worst disaster I have ever seen in my life.

    And THAT is saying something as I have definitely seen a few.

    MAKE IT A GREAT DAY🙂

  32. @ louise Yes, we also can’t forget the ‘memorialize’ lawsuit. Wouldn’t you too get out before SHTF

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/bombshell-admission-of-failed-securitization-process-in-american-home-mortgage-servicinglps-lawsuit.html

  33. Quiet Title

    NEVER AGAIN

  34. @david it sound as if a broker was brokering your loan through GMAC or it could have been a bank, but what is that your trying to say, as far as who funded the loan or what. Your in need of finding out if the loan is titled correctly, because i don’t see a why a person find out from one company to another whether the money source was and would it make a different to the courts unless it was drug money.

    Who was the broker and in your documentation who did it say the loan was being delivered too. What does the original title recorded at the court house say!

  35. the copy of my note is from gmac in 20011, and it is sign and dated the same day we sign the mortgage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and it was signed over to the bank that wired the money. so there is nothing on the wire transfer fund copy, that would say it was from a gmac mortgage corporation bank account, and there is nothing anywheres showing money came from this fake lender gmac mortgage corp. i have found 5 different corps, in mass saying they were gmac mortgage corp.

  36. per gene by way of response to Neidermeyer:
    “CW was also the loan custodian for many of the Trusts”.

    Do tell…? Is this one more of those statements made and then presumed to be factual, and if not just the errant and unwarranted presumptive fact I’d hazard it is, is this statement actually made by the trust trustee, meaning not his alleged agent, att in fact, chief bottle washer, etc? When the relationship between two parties is averred and to be relied on, it’s on the proponent of the relationship being asserted to prove the relationship. Further, the proof must come from the principal, and not by way of a self-serving statement from the alleged servant in any hat.
    I’m not taking aim at you, Gene. YOU didn’t make this probably rash and unwarranted determination ( although you appear to rely on it
    when need be).
    It isn’t “foreclosure law”. It’s BUSINESS law. It only becomes foreclosure law after business law supports a proposition, a contract, an asserted relationship, all that “stuff”, at least many times. Is it true that MERS by and large no longer asserts an agency? Here I’m asking to get an answer, because I don’t know but it looks that way. This is totally from the hip: there is a world of diff between a nominee and an agent. Unfortunately, I’m not able to adequately explain the dispositive
    difference. But I think I can say this: a nominee is named a party to a contract by agreement of the person who would be the named party to a contract if that party didn’t have some reason for not wanting to be a named party. He does act in some capacity, but it isn’t agency, I believe.
    There would have to be a (written when it comes to real property) contract between those parties or the nominee wouldn’t be a nominee and the party who didn’t want to be a named party would be nobody. I don’t remember this minute why, but agency was the last thing in the world that MERSCorp and its members would’ve wanted. That is, until they had the world by the you know and it thus became more useful than deadly because the very real issues they knew they needed to avoid never materialized, though they should have). This is when courts started turning the law on its head: when that gang had, or there was a perception they had,us (I’m on they had which imo is actually worse), by the short ones. Whether you disagree with the WHY, it appears nonetheless to be what happened as to “agency” and that gang began claiming it existed and courts, in a total abandonment of rules of evidence, found an agency and further found, if not just plain interjected, the scope of that agency, with the same abandonment. I mean, seriously, real property agency requires express appt by the principal (not the other party to the contract, here the borrower) AND the written agreement defines the scope of the agent’s authority to act for the principal. I just still can’t believe all the blind presumptions being made by courts. The best that can be presumed about any relationship between mers and its alleged principal since the principal doesn’t sign the dot, is that the dot implies there is a relationship and the other party to the contract, the borrower, is informed of some kind of relationship. But what is it? As a matter of law the “what is it” isn’t found in the dot and even if expressedly recited, it’s of no consequence since the lender doesn’t sign it. I’ll give them this: the lender provides the dot to the borrower, which implies a thing or two. But, still real-property agency can’t be found by implication as a matter of law.
    Now all this part I just wrote might be distracting, but it’s still representative of what homeowner defense lets slide as if we have no way to do anything about it. I suppose a lot of people think stuff about mers has been decided. Yeah, maybe, but imo not on the right
    arguments.
    And, ala another blog site host’s big trip,, the agreement is between MERSCorp and its members, not even between mers and its members. This isn’t foreclosure law first – it’s BUSINESS law first imo, which is why I mention the merscorp v mers deal. It’s ramifications will be found in BUSINESS law.
    NG has provided us a grand vehicle for discussion and laid a lot of good info on us, and because certain facts regarding securitization need to be known to reach a goal, it’s been a great benefit to many,
    including me. Speaking for myself and many others here, I dare acknowledge it’s a lonely road, one we typically can’t share with our neighbors and friends because they don’t get it, if for no other reason. We also can’t often get a lot of help on our own deals here because it isn’t a private forum.
    Having said that, in short – my appreciation for this site, we’re not getting to third base before we reach first and second, and we sure as heck aren’t getting to home plate, not without valid attacks on each and every single piece of garbage laid on us in court which is allowed to pass for fact……unfortunately by us, including if not starting with alleged relationships.
    So how bout some business law, NG? That’s entirely what’s underlying (and lack of attention to is undermining) these cases. IMO. Now that we’ve established (haven’t we?) there are exceptions to the three year SOL on TILA rescission, for instance, when “should’ve” a borrower had known of an infraction justifying rescission?
    Okay, I’ll be really honest. To some extent, I’ll admit I believe a lot of NG’s stuff has been more distracting than useful (not this particular post). I believe this is evident in some of our actions, but then, I also have to admit it’s a bitch because we have to dodge motions to dismiss and for sj by not laying certain stuff out there in our actions.
    I believe the distraction, whether this site is the source or another site is, is no where more evident than in the recent Harkey action, linked here by one of us, where it looked to me the entire goal of the meandering complaint was to defeat SJ, as in, like he saved nothing. There’s a very crude, but most apropos, expression for that. (But I’m still quite anxious to see the response and applaud his efforts fwiw.)

    2015 and the banksters are still using their own employees to execute assignments to themselves (or maybe not since some courts have ruled post-closing assgts to trusts are unchallengeable by the other party to the contract at issue), in which case alleged officers of mers
    servicer employees are executing them. In a case in the last year or two, the NV SC ruled that it found the alleged dual-officership (for servicer and mers) of the servicer’s employee “unremarkable”, which made me gag when I read it. Literally. That might, as a matter of law, be “unremarkable”, but in the context of the case, it was in fact “remarkable” since that alleged dual-officer executed a document purporting to convey someone else’s interest to 1) the guy who pays him or 2) by its acceptance by the assignee would defeat the assignee’s
    whole reason to exist. In any other business deal, this would more than appropriately raise some eyebrows. And now in 2015, WHAT IS an officer of a corporation, never minding hultman’s alleged appts? “I now dub thee officer”? That the entire bar? “I’m the agent or nominee of the guy who owns this thing, but I’m making you an officer (or sub-agent is a poss argument) so that you may at will assign the interest of my principal to the guy who pays you or to anyone else you want? YOU decide.” Here I point out that Hultman admitted in an action that MERS gets no direction from its alleged principal to make that assgt of its interest. If Mers were in fact an agent, it would have abrogated a duty which as a matter of law (read up, if I may) may not be abrogated by an agent, which is why they have to call those 20k + member-employees ‘officers’ and why mers avoided agency until they were forced and it had become “safe”.
    NG, maybe you will address some business law now and then so we can get to first stinking base. The alternative to thinking some of this has been more distracting than anything, as evidenced by the loss of so many of our homes, is that we have no defenses to these contracts and instruments and I don’t believe it. To me, then, it stands to reason we need to be barking up a different tree. I mean, get stinking real.
    One party to an agreement has no standing to argue the guy after him is not a party to the contract at issue because the court has predetermined he owes SOMEone and hasn’t alleged he could pay the right someone? **A party who is not the other party to a contract doesn’t even have standing to argue the ability of a real party to the agreement to tender; he can’t argue someone else’s right or claim. If the tender bs is valid, it can only apply to a party who has standing and jurisdiction thus exists to hear anything about tender. **
    Lay opinions as always

  37. Folks not that you don’t have a case about what was done wrong but we don’t have enough information on your cases, but in a loan file there going to be Notes at different stages depending on when they made a copy of the Notes because they are not signed until you sign them and that apply to all the documents.

    Remember as GMAC is not a bank but a mortgage company and would have to have the bank they use (which could be a lot of banks) wire the money into the closing. How many bank account does the average citizen have? A couple? If you were to wire some money somewhere you would need to have your bank do it for you.

    Unless you know the arrangement of the Mortgage companies and their bank as to the wiring of monies! Now the good thing about Massachusetts is there a way to challenge the title if the loan was handled by Wells Fargo, Citi, JPMorgan & BOA.

  38. NEIDERMEYER, so you would agree, than in the reading of the law, under federal law, that the 3 yrs, would start after you find out there was bad stuff going . is that what you think?

  39. @ David Belanger ,

    Let that rescission fly!

  40. Regarding OCWEN I’ve had recent dealings with them… and they really are bending over backwards with all of the regulatory heat … The HAMP mod offered to me included a large amount for servicer advances that they added as a balloon on the back end… The thing is that OCWEN made no servicer advances on my behalf… That was AHMSI and as OCWEN got benefit of the advances when they bought AHMSI in the form of a lower purchase price for the company that shouldn’t have been included on my HAMP paperwork…

  41. Unfortunately, the scam goes all the way up and down the judicial ladder. The judges know what is going on. The pension plan for the judges & court clerks in my state sued the BONY Mellon for selling them bad MBS’s. How can they not know what the F%^k is going on.

  42. LOUISE, I ALSO HAVE A COPY OF A MY MORTGAGE NOTE, ASSIGN WITHOUT RECOURSE TO THIS BANK, AND ITS DATED THE SAME DAY WE SIGN FOR LOAN???? OVER PAST 5 YRS I HAVE NOW 3 DIFFERENT COPY’S OF MY NOTE, SOME BLANK,AND THE ONE I JUST SAID WAS SIGN OVER TO THIS BANK, AND ONE WITH NOTHING ON IT. FUNNY RIGHT… HOW COULD A OR ANY JUDGE SAY WITCH ONE IS TRUE. WE ALL KNOW THE ORIGINALS WERE DESTROYED.

  43. That is correct. you were never informed who or what MERS was. I also have evidence a different lender was involved in my transaction that was not disclosed, i.e., a warehouse lender. Judge threw that out, too. FYI, the attorneys are up to their eyeballs in the scam. I should have sued the title company from the beginning.

  44. question to all. we all know it’s all about the money. all fraud, security fraud,etc,etc.

    if a mortgage /deed of trust, has a MERS, MIN NUMBER ON IT. as all or most do.

    then before the borrower reads or signs that mortgage, it has been assign to MERS,MORT.ELECT,REG,SYS.INC/ WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION. THE MORTGAGE ISN’T SIGN YET? RIGHT?

    NOW, i just got all and i mean all doc’s from our closing attorney from our 2005 closing. funny he was quite upset he still had it, when he told me that all docs get destoyed after 5 yrs, luckely they didn’t for me.

    so when his office clerk came in with it, he look like a deer in head lights, so he had to give me all copys in that folder. well well what do we have here. A COPY OF THE WIRE TRANSFER FROM A BANK THAT WASN’T THE LENDER, AND THE LENDERS NAME IS NO WERE TO SEE. AND THE WIRE TRANSFER , OF CREDIT WENT RIGHT INTO THE ACCOUNT OF THE ATTORNEY BANK, CHECKING ACCOUNT. AND ALL CHECK WERE MADE OUT FROM HIS CHECKING ACCOUNT. NO WERE IN ALL CLOSING DOC’S DOES IT SHOW THE LENDER. GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION!!!!

    and the funds came from a financial institution that wasn’t authorized to do business in our state of mass.. or any other that i know of.
    DBTCO AMERICAS NYC. ABA 021001033, ALSO KNOWN AS DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST CO. AMERICAS!!!!

    and to find out this only in the past yr, wouldn’t that be a good reason to recin the deal?? with i believe is a 3 yr window. after finding out that some monkey business did happen. ??? so would that new supreme court dis work here?

  45. Here we got lender like Wells Fargo who service more loans than any other servicing group, but they allowed Ocwen to service loan and were in the process of dumping thousands if not millions of loan over to Ocwen. What wrong with this picture that the Nation’s largest servicer was not aware of how a like business is so criminal?

    The Fed Gov only has to look at any number of WaMu foreclosed loans after Sept 25, 2008 that Wells Fargo handled and look at what currently in Wells Fargo current group of WaMu serviced government insured loan and this RICO scheme is over. Ginnie Mae MBS is fatally flawed!

  46. I have Ocwen, and the forged documents are unbelievable.

  47. Ocwen is criminal any mortgage that has been serviced by Ocwen is probably illegal and void!

  48. Reblogged this on patrickainsworth and commented:
    shut down Ocwen and put them in jail!

  49. Remember, Wilbur Ross dumped Ocwen allegedly because he was working as an adviser in International concerns, but Wilbur saw the handwriting on the wall and got out before the SHTF. Very telling along with the shill who posted that, of course, Ocwen was doing “just fine.”

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: