MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT: “NOTHING PLUS NOTHING EQUALS NOTHING”

Livinglies Team Services: see GTC HONORS Services, Books and Products

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

For more information please email us at gtchonors.llblog@gmail.com or call us at 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

This is not legal advice on your case. Consult a lawyer who is licensed in the jurisdiction in which the transaction and /or property is located.

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

SEE 2015-08-10-0001

NOTHING PLUS NOTHING EQUALS NOTHING

On February 25, 2015 the Minnesota Supreme Court considered several of the conventional theories advanced by the banks in favor of their right to foreclose. And the Court also considered the procedural and substantive issues surrounding rescission in Minnesota whose statutes closely resemble rescission under the Federal Truth in Lending Act.

The court rejected the bank’s arguments and points out that even the dissent on the court made the same mistakes as the lower courts, which were obviously in a state of utter confusion. It should be noted that this decision was rendered approximately 1 month after the Jesinoski v. Countrywide decision. It is apparent that the Supreme Court of Minnesota was heavily influenced by the unanimous Supreme Court decision governing rescission under the Truth in Lending Act.

In the nearly 8 million foreclosures that have been allowed by the judicial system using deeply flawed reasoning, the banks have convinced the courts that piling up paperwork essentially creates rights even if none existed before. The Minnesota Supreme Court simply stated that nothing plus nothing equals nothing. If you start with nothing then any successor to any paperwork that was executed also gets nothing. This is well settled law.

The court also considered the issue of cancellation or rescission of a transaction in the light of a statute that is clear on its face. Since there are few appellate decisions since the Jesinoski was rendered in January, we must refer to the Supreme Court of Minnesota in this case as at least a starting point.

Starting with the fact that the statute was clear, the court concludes that no court had the authority or jurisdiction to “interpret” the statute. For at least 8 years before Jesinoski the banks convinced thousands of judges in hundreds of thousands of decisions to ignore a rescission or cancellation of the loan documents that was, according to the statute, effective upon mailing.

The banks convinced the courts to read into that statute the rules governing common law rescission, which clearly conflict with the statute. If the statute is clear then it is by definition not ambiguous. And if there is no finding of ambiguity in the statute, the court has established, whether it likes it or not, that it has no power or jurisdiction to change the outcome based upon the opinion of the judge as to which party should win. If the judge proceeds to interpret the statute anyway, it is a nullity. Here again we have the application of the simple formula proposed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota, to wit: nothing plus nothing equals nothing. In the case of TILA Rescission the issue is closed, to wit: the unanimous decision of the US Supreme Court in Jesinoski was that the statute is not ambiguous and thus not subject to interpretation by ANY judge.

 

The third line of defense by the banks slight of hand — they make the transaction so complex and convoluted that it is impossible for the judge or even the homeowner or his attorney to follow it. The judge then relies upon the more sophisticated party (the bank) to clear up the complexity. But as we have recently seen in several Florida cases, and now as we see in the Minnesota Supreme Court, the judicial system has made an about-face and is now questioning whether there is any substance behind the paperwork and the complexity raised by claims of securitization which have been revealed in most cases to be false. Like the unanimous US Supreme, there is unanimity of findings and conclusions by regulators, legal scholars, economists, financial experts, and litigators, with tens of billions of dollars in settlements that were made public and hundreds of billions of dollars in private settlements. The conclusion is that the securitization failed — i.e., that it never really happened.

The Minnesota Supreme Court plunged into the midst of the complexity offered up by the various transactions involved in this particular case. The court succeeded in simplifying the matter by applying well settled law with no need to interpret anything or redefine anything.

While the facts of this case vary from the usual rescission issues under the Federal Truth in Lending Act, the principles applied remain the same.

However, the court places heavy emphasis on the time limits imposed by the statute for the exercise of the cancellation or rescission of a transaction. It may be expected that most courts will do the same. But it is also true that both the majority and the dissent seem to be in agreement that if the rescission was recorded the issue would have been less in doubt than it appeared in the court record.

Because it wasn’t in issue. this court has not addressed procedural issues, to wit: who has the burden of proof on the issue of timeliness? Under TILA Rescission it is the real creditor (the only one with standing). How do we know that? We know it because the borrower is not required to prove or allege timeliness. The rescission is effective when mailed. Practice Hint: In an action to enforce the rescission, the grounds for rescission need not and should not be in the allegations — the issue is limited to the sending of the rescission letter and the fact that the party being sued is attempting to use the void note and mortgage.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, the party being sued (servicer, Trustee etc) for permanent injunction from using the void note and void mortgage may NOT raise issues of timeliness of the rescission because they have no standing to do so. The actual creditor, if there is one, would be the only party able to do that. That would be an action for wrongful rescission. Note that in Jesinoski, Justice Scalia makes the point that the statute makes no distinction between disputed and undisputed rescissions. Hence “effective when mailed” means exactly that and the loan contract, note and mortgage are all canceled and void. If the issue of timeliness was still “out there”, then the rescission would not be effective upon mailing — which is exactly the point Justice Scalia was making. He didn’t say that the creditor could not file a lawsuit to vacate the rescission based upon timeliness. But that lawsuit would need to allege, first and foremost that the pleader had standing as a party who is being financially injured by the rescission. As I see it, no other party could raise those issues because they lack standing.

The most interesting point about this is that the lawsuit for enforcement of the rescission will not likely be against the creditor because the creditor is unknown. We only have access to the information given to us by self-appointed intermediaries who are claiming a right to enforce the note and mortgage. But since the rescission is effective upon mailing by operation of law, the effect is to make the note and mortgage void (as well as canceling the loan contract — if there is one). So the only defense from intermediary parties sued (to prevent them from using the note and mortgage) to the lawsuit for injunction or enforcement of the rescission is that the rescission was already vacated by a court of competent jurisdiction, which is essentially never the case. This is why rescission is such an effective discovery tool as well, to wit: in order to challenge the “wrongful” rescission the challenge must be made by the party who has something to lose — like the current liability to disgorge all the money paid by the borrower, deduct all finance charges, and pay to the borrower all the money paid to third parties as compensation for origination of the loan.

Hence the lesson drawn from this case is that the rescission should probably be recorded in the county property records as quickly as possible. In Florida it would appear that this would be done by attaching a copy of the rescission letter to the notice of interest in real property and then recording the entire instrument with the exhibit. Combining the two issues of timing and recording, it would appear that if anything in the notice of rescission or cancellation of the transaction refers to the date of consummation of the transaction, that the rescission could be void on its face for not complying with the statutory time periods for action by the borrower. A reference to the date of consummation in the letter giving notice of the rescission or cancellation of the transaction would also appear to be an admission that the transaction was in fact consummated.

The lesson to take away from that analysis is that the date on which the documents were signed is not necessarily the date of consummation. The date of consummation would be when the loan was funded and the liability of the borrower first arose as a result of the funding. IN our first year of law school we are taught that the liability of the borrower does not commence when he signs paperwork; the liability arises when the borrower gets the money. If the funding didn’t come from the party claiming to have rights to enforce the loan by virtue of what was written on the note or the mortgage or deed of trust, then we go back to nothing plus nothing equals nothing. No loan plus assignment of loan equals no successor, no servicer and no owner of the loan.

That would mean that the borrower would prevail under either one of two theories, which you see developed in this case in Minnesota. It is either No Consummation or Rescission. Either the borrower is entitled to nullification of the entire transaction and nullification of the instruments that should never have been released from the closing table and were procured by at best a failure to disclose and at worst an intentional misrepresentation, or the borrower would prevail for having cancelled or rescinded the transaction.

The forth line of defense from the banks has always been that the borrower is seeking a “free house.” No such thing occurs in the event of either nullification of the original instruments or cancellation of rescission of the original instruments. The party to whom the money is actually owed still has claims and might even have claims for an equitable interest in the mortgage that was recorded. But it does not have claims to simply exercise the rights of the creditor as expressed in the note and mortgage because the actual creditor has no legal interest in the note or in the mortgage. AND THAT would require a court order AFTER a party enters the picture and alleges that it is the actual creditor and can prove it.

No money plus note plus mortgage equals no valid lien and no foreclosure. It is positively astounding that after 8 million foreclosures we are still arguing about a well settled principle of law, fairness, equity and justice — in order for the paper to be used there had to be an actual transaction with the parties IN THAT CHAIN.

 

The banks have bootstrapped their misuse of investor money together with false claims of securitization to create the illusion that some or all of them had some actual rights; but nowhere have they ever come forward and done what any creditor would do when challenged about the transactions: “here they are, with canceled checks and wire transfer receipts. Next question?”

A fifth issue emerges which the court could have avoided but instead met the issue head on. “It is of course elementary that delivery of a deed is essential to a transfer of title…Delivery of a deed is complete only when the grantor has put it beyond his power to revoke or reclaim it…An undelivered deed cannot transfer legal title even to a bona fide purchaser, because lack of delivery renders the deed void…In this case, although Graves physically transferred a quick claim deed to Wayman, delivery did not occur because Graves never put the deed beyond his power to revoke or reclaim it.”

The court concluded that since “Graves retained the power to revoke or reclaim the deed during the statutory cancellation period…which made deliver impossible during the cancellation period,” that delivery was never completed. The court concluded “without delivery of the deed to Wayman, the common law treats the quick claim deed as void.”

 

The reason this is important is that it is a hidden issue in all of the closings that have occurred, especially over the last 10 years, where loans were ostensibly approved and funded. The note is released for anyone to do anything they want to do with it usually within a few days or a few weeks from the date that the borrower executed the mortgage instruments. The mortgage itself is not only released but it is recorded. The problem with that is that it is incontestable that the borrower retains a right to rescind for the first 3 days on any grounds at all, and that the 3 days starts to run from the date of consummation.

If the party on the note as payee and on the mortgage as mortgagee did not consummate the transaction with the borrower and instead was a sham nominee or party to a table funded loan, then it would follow that the 3‑day period under the Truth in Lending Act had not commenced running. It would also follow that the 3‑year limitations in the Truth in Lending Act had also not commenced running. And the reason is the Minnesota court’s statement that “nothing plus nothing equals nothing.” It is obvious to the Minnesota Supreme Court, and should be obvious to the rest of us, that it would be completely inappropriate for a third party to the transaction to act as though the endorsements and assignments of improperly executed and improperly drafted instruments would somehow create rights that did not exist before.

If the banks would want to assert rights in connection with the meeting at which the borrower executed the usual pile of documents it would first need to acknowledge the fact that it was the real party in interest and to prove that fact. This would amount to an admission of a pattern of conduct that is described by Regulation Z as predatory per se. Anything that is predatory per se, is obviously against public policy. Anything that is against public policy is obviously evidence of unclean hands. A party with unclean hands may not obtain equitable relief. Since foreclosure is the most extreme remedy under civil law, and is a remedy generally considered to be equitable in nature, then it follows that no party with unclean hands should be allowed to foreclose.

The idea that any of this produces a free house for the borrower is wrong. In the first place, the borrower has invested a great deal of money usually in connection with the property on which there is a claim of an encumbrance. In many cases the property has been in the family for generations and would not be subject to mortgage but for the knock on the door from one of the tens of thousands of loan agents that were selling loan products from door to door. But assuming that the current system of foreclosures becomes subject to the conclusions of the courts in the judicial system that foreclosure is impossible, that does not mean that the source of funding may not make a claim upon the homeowner for repayment of the money that was used to fund the origination or acquisition of the loan.

In fact it is quite obvious now that we know that at least half of all the people who went into foreclosure were asking for modifications, that the losses attendant to the actual loans could have been minimized at the same time as keeping homeowners in the homes and enabling them to recapture over time their equity. In fact the evidence is clear that most homeowners would be happy to execute entirely new and valid paperwork with a party who was in fact the real creditor.

The Minnesota court decides that even if you are a bona fide purchaser because you paid valuable consideration for the mortgage in reliance on what appeared to be the facts, you still get nothing if you paid for something where the grantor did not possess an interest that could be conveyed. This is bad news for the banks. They introduce undated endorsements and undated assignments and powers of attorney and various other instruments in court laying paper upon paper upon paper making it appear, that the greater weight of the evidence shows that they are in fact possessed of the claim to enforce the note and mortgage.

Nothing could be further from the truth. If their chain upon which they are relying in their foreclosure is based on a non‑existent transaction or an incomplete transaction, then they have no power to do anything anymore than the original party did. The only exception to this might be in the event that a party was introduced as a holder in due course. But that would mean that the party described as a holder in due course paid real value for the rights expressed in the note, under circumstances where it was acting in good faith and without knowledge of the borrower’s defenses. Such an allegation might be made, but appears impossible for the banks to prove.

74 Responses

  1. you stated, yup were have you been. , you need to look up
    all these trust are no were, gone , pay off in full , nana, see ya, good buy, bla bla bla

    .rescaprmbssettlement.com/

    Revised Exhibit A to the Declaration
    Deutsche Bank RMBS Trusts

    MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
    James L. Garrity, Jr.
    John C. Goodchild, III (pro hac vice)
    101 Park Avenue
    New York, New York 10178-0600
    Telephone: (212) 309-6000
    Facsimile: (212) 309-6001
    Counsel to Deutsche Bank National Trust
    Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company
    Americas, as Trustees of Certain Mortgage
    Backed Securities Trusts
    UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
    SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
    In re:
    RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL, LLC, et al.,
    Debtors.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    Case No. 12-12020 (MG)
    Chapter 11
    Jointly Administered
    AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF BRENDAN MEYER

    Revised Exhibit A to the Declaration
    Deutsche Bank RMBS Trusts

    Name of Securitization Trust
    1 RF99Q4 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. , Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1999-QS4
    2 RF01K3 Residential Asset Securities Corporation, Home Equity Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2001-KS3
    3 RF01QD Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2001-QS13
    4 RF01QG Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2001-QS16
    5 RF01QH Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2001-QS17
    6 RF01QJ Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2001-QS19
    7 RF01QI Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2001-QS18
    8 RF02K1 Residential Asset Securities Corporation, Home Equity Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-KS1
    9 RF02Q1 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-QS1
    10 RF02Q2 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-QS2
    11 RF02Q4 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-QS4
    12 RF02Q3 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-QS3
    13 RF02K2 Residential Asset Securities Corporation, Home Equity Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-KS2
    14 RF02Q5 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-QS5
    15 RF02Q6 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-QS6
    16 RF02Q7 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-QS7
    17 RF02Q8 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-QS8
    18 RF02Q9 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-QS9
    19 RF02QA Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-QS10
    20 RF02QB Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-QS11
    21 RF02QC Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-QS12
    22 RF02QD Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-QS13
    23 RF02QE Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-QS14
    24 RF02QF Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-QS15
    25 RF02QG Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-QS16
    26 RF02QH Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-QS17
    27 RF02R1 Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-RM1
    28 RF02QI Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-QS18
    29 RF02QJ Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-QS19
    1 of 11
    12-12020-mg Doc 3980 Filed 06/14/13 Entered 06/14/13 13:36:11 Main Document
    Pg 5 of 15
    Exhibit A
    Issuer ID Name of Securitization Trust
    30 RF03Q1 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QS1
    31 RF03Q2 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QS2
    32 RF03Q3 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QS3
    33 RF03R1 Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-RM1
    34 RF03Q4 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QS4
    35 RF03Q5 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QS5
    36 RF03Q6 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QS6
    37 RF03Q7 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QS7
    38 RF03Q8 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QS8
    39 RF03QH Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003-QS17
    40 RF03R2 Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-RM2
    41 RF03QA Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QS10
    42 RF03Q9 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QS9
    43 RF03QB Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QS11
    44 RF03QC Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QS12
    45 RF03QD Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QS13
    46 RF03QE Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QS14
    47 RF03QF Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QS15
    48 RF03QG Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QS16
    49 RF03QI Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QS18
    50 RF03QJ Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QS19
    51 RF03QL Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QS20
    52 RF03QM Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QS21
    53 RF03QN Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QS22
    54 RF03QO Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QS23
    55 RF03QQ Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QA1
    56 RF04Q1 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-QS1
    57 RF04Q2 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-QS2
    58 RF04S1 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-SL1
    2 of 11
    12-12020-mg Doc 3980 Filed 06/14/13 Entered 06/14/13 13:36:11 Main Document
    Pg 6 of 15
    Exhibit A
    Issuer ID Name of Securitization Trust
    59 RF04A1 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-QA1
    60 RF04Q3 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-QS3
    61 RF04Q4 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-QS4
    62 RF04Q5 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-QS5
    63 RF04Q6 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-QS6
    64 RF04Q7 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-QS7
    65 RF04S2 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-SL2
    66 RF04A2 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-QA2
    67 RF04Q8 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-QS8
    68 RF04Q9 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-QS9
    69 RF04QA Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-QS10
    70 RF04A3 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-QA3
    71 RF04QB Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-QS11
    72 RF04S3 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-SL3
    73 RF04A4 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-QA4
    74 RF04QC Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-QS12
    75 RF04QD Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-QS13
    76 RF04QE Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-QS14
    77 RF04QF Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-QS15
    78 RF04A5 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-QA5
    79 RF04A6 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-QA6
    80 RF04QG Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-QS16
    81 RF04S4 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-SL4
    82 RF05A1 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QA1
    83 RF05Q1 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QS1
    84 RF05Q2 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QS2
    85 RF05A2 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. , Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QA2
    86 RF05S1 Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc., Mortgage-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-SL1
    87 RF05A3 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QA3
    3 of 11
    12-12020-mg Doc 3980 Filed 06/14/13 Entered 06/14/13 13:36:11 Main Document
    Pg 7 of 15
    Exhibit A
    Issuer ID Name of Securitization Trust
    88 RF05Q3 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QS3
    89 RF05A4 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QA4
    90 RF05Q4 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QS4
    91 RF05Q5 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QS5
    92 RF05A5 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QA5
    93 RF05A6 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QA6
    94 RF05Q6 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QS6
    95 RF05Q7 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QS7
    96 RF05Q8 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QS8
    97 RF05Q9 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QS9
    98 RF05A7 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QA7
    99 RF05S2 Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc., Mortgage-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-SL2
    100 RF05QA Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QS10
    101 RF05QB Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QS11
    102 RF05A8 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QA8
    103 RF05O1 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QO1
    104 RF05A9 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QA9
    105 RF05QC Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QS12
    106 RF05O2 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QO2
    107 RF05QD Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QS13
    108 RF05QE Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QS14
    109 RF05AA Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QA10
    110 RF05AB Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QA11
    111 RF05O3 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QO3
    112 RF05QF Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QS15
    113 RF05AC Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QA12
    114 RF05O4 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QO4
    115 RF05QG Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QS16
    116 RF05AD Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QA13
    4 of 11
    12-12020-mg Doc 3980 Filed 06/14/13 Entered 06/14/13 13:36:11 Main Document
    Pg 8 of 15
    Exhibit A
    Issuer ID Name of Securitization Trust
    117 RF05O5 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QO5
    118 RF05QH Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QS17
    119 RF06A1 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QA1
    120 RF06Q1 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QS1
    121 RF06Q3 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QS3
    122 RF06A3 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QA3
    123 RF06Q4 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QS4
    124 RF06A4 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QA4
    125 RF06Q5 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QS5
    126 RF06A5 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QA5
    127 RF06Q6 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QS6
    128 RF06Q7 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QS7
    129 RF06A6 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QA6
    130 RF06Q9 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QS9
    131 RF06A7 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QA7
    132 RF06QA Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QS10
    133 RF06QB Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QS11
    134 RF06A8 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QA8
    135 RF06QC Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QS12
    136 RF06QD Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QS13
    137 RF06Q8 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-QS8
    138 RF06A9 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QA9
    139 RF06QE Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-QS14
    140 RF06QF Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QS15
    141 RF06AA Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QA10
    142 RF06QG Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-QS16
    143 RF06AB Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QA11
    144 RF06QH Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QS17
    145 RF06QI Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QS18
    5 of 11
    12-12020-mg Doc 3980 Filed 06/14/13 Entered 06/14/13 13:36:11 Main Document
    Pg 9 of 15
    Exhibit A
    Issuer ID Name of Securitization Trust
    146 RF07A1 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QA1
    147 RF07Q1 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QS1
    148 RF07Q2 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QS2
    149 RF07A2 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QA2
    150 RF07Q3 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QS3
    151 RF07Q4 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QS4
    152 RF07Q5 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QS5
    153 RF07S4 Residential Funding Mortgage Securities I Inc., Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-S4
    154 RF07A3 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QA3
    155 RF07Q6 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QS6
    156 RF07A4 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QA4
    157 RF07Q7 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QS7
    158 RF07S5 Residential Funding Mortgage Securities I Inc., Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-S5
    159 RF07Q8 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QS8
    160 RF07Q9 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QS9
    161 RF07QA Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QS10
    162 RF07A5 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QA5
    163 RF07QB Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-QS11
    164 RF06O1 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QO1
    165 RF06O3 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QO3
    166 RF06O4 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QO4
    167 RF06O5 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QO5
    168 RF06O6 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QO6
    169 RF06O7 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QO7
    170 RF06O8 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QO8
    171 RF06H1 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QH1
    172 RF06O9 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QO9
    173 RF06OA Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-QO10
    174 RF07H1 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QH1
    6 of 11
    12-12020-mg Doc 3980 Filed 06/14/13 Entered 06/14/13 13:36:11 Main Document
    Pg 10 of 15
    Exhibit A
    Issuer ID Name of Securitization Trust
    175 RF07O1 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QO1
    176 RF07H2 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QH2
    177 RF07O2 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QO2
    178 RF07H3 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QH3
    179 RF07O3 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QO3
    180 RF07H4 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QH4
    181 RF07H5 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QH5
    182 RF07O4 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QO4
    183 RF07H6 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QH6
    184 RF07H7 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QH7
    185 RF07O5 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QO5
    186 RF07H8 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QH8
    187 RF07H9 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QH9
    188 GA05A3 GMACM Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-AR3
    189 GA05A4 GMACM Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-AR4
    190 GA05A5 GMACM Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-AR5
    191 GA05A6 GMACM Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-AR6
    192 GA05F1 GMACM Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-AF1
    193 GA05F2 GMACM Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-AF2
    194 GA05J1 GMACM Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-J1
    195 GS07H1 GSR Trust 2007-HEL1
    196 GS07A1 GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR1 Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2007-A1
    197 GC0613 HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-13
    198 GC070B RBSGC Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-B
    199 GC07H7 HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7
    200 GS07O2 GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-OA2 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-OA2
    201 GC06X1 HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-SB1
    202 GC914 Greenwich 1991-4
    203 GC05SB Soundview Home Loan Trust 2005-B
    7 of 11
    12-12020-mg Doc 3980 Filed 06/14/13 Entered 06/14/13 13:36:11 Main Document
    Pg 11 of 15
    Exhibit A
    Issuer ID Name of Securitization Trust
    204 NC040A New Century Home Equity Loan Trust 2004-A
    205 UB04S1 MASTR Specialized Loan Trust 2004-1
    206 GC05SA Soundview Home Loan Trust 2005-A
    207 GC04X1 FNBA Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-AR1
    208 GC05G4 Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Trust 2005-HE4
    209 GC03S2 Soundview 2003-2
    210 UB07S1 MASTR SPECIALIZED LOAN TRUST 2007-01 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
    211 UB07S2 MASTR SPECIALIZED LOAN TRUST 2007-02 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
    212 AB07O1 Alliance Securities Corp., Mortgage Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-OA1
    213 AH0501 American Home Mortgage Securities LLC Trust 2005-1
    214 AH0502 American Home Mortgage Securities LLC Trust 2005-2
    215 AH0602 American Home Mortgage Securities LLC Trust 2006-2
    216 AH07AS American Home Mortgage Securities LLC Trust 2007-A
    217 GC0614 HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-14
    218 GC07H2 HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2
    219 GC07H4 HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-4
    220 GC07HA HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-A
    221 MS0503 Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-3AR Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-3AR
    222 GC03H1 HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2003-1 Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-1
    223 GC03H2 HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2003-2 Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-2
    224 GC0410 HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-10 Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-10
    225 GC04H1 HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-1 Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-1
    226 GC04H4 HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-4 Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-4
    227 GC04H5 HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-5 Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-5
    228 GC04H6 HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-6 Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-6
    229 GC04H7 HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-7 Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-7
    230 GC04H8 HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2004-8 Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-8
    231 GC0511 HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-11 Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-11
    232 GC0515 HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-15 Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-15
    8 of 11
    12-12020-mg Doc 3980 Filed 06/14/13 Entered 06/14/13 13:36:11 Main Document
    Pg 12 of 15
    Exhibit A
    Issuer ID Name of Securitization Trust
    233 GC05H4 HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-4 Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-4
    234 GC05H6 HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-6 Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-6
    235 GC05H7 HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-7 Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-7
    236 GC06H8 Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-8
    237 UB06S2 MASTR Specialized Loan Trust 2006-02 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
    238 MS0505 MORGAN STANLEY Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-5AR
    239 MS0506 MORGAN STANLEY Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-6AR
    240 MS0509 MORGAN STANLEY Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-9AR
    241 MS0511 MORGAN STANLEY Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-11AR
    242 UB06S3 MASTR Specialized Loan Trust 2006-3
    243 MS0507 Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-7
    244 MS0510 Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-10
    245 MG0401 MortgageIT Trust 2004-1, Mortgage Backed Notes, Series 2004-1
    246 MG0402 MortgageIT Trust 2004-2, Mortgage Backed Notes, Series 2004-2
    247 MG0501 MortgageIT Trust 2005-1, Mortgage Backed Notes, Series 2005-1
    248 MG0502 MortgageIT Trust 2005-2, Mortgage Backed Notes, Series 2005-2
    249 MG0503 MortgageIT Trust 2005-3, Mortgage Backed Notes, Series 2005-3
    250 MG0504 MortgageIT Trust 2005-4, Mortgage Backed Notes, Series 2005-4
    251 MG0505 MortgageIT Trust 2005-5, Mortgage Backed Notes, Series 2005-5
    252 IM02S2 Impac Secured Assets Corp. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2002-2
    253 IM02S3 Impac Secured Assets Corp. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2002-3
    254 IM03S1 Impac Secured Assets Corp. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003-1
    255 IM03S3 Impac Secured Assets Corp. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2003-3
    256 IM04S1 Impac Secured Assets Corp. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2004-1
    257 IM04S2 Impac Secured Assets Corp. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2004-2
    258 IM06S1 Impac Secured Assets Corp. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-1
    259 IM06S2 Impac Secured Assets Corp. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-2
    260 IM06S3 Impac Secured Assets Corp. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-3
    261 IM06S4 Impac Secured Assets Corp. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-4
    9 of 11
    12-12020-mg Doc 3980 Filed 06/14/13 Entered 06/14/13 13:36:11 Main Document
    Pg 13 of 15
    Exhibit A
    Issuer ID Name of Securitization Trust
    262 IM06S5 Impac Secured Assets Corp. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-5
    263 IM070A IMPAC CMB Trust Series 2007-A
    264 IM07S3 Impac Secured Assets Corp. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-3
    265 IM0209 Impac CMB Trust 2002-9F
    266 IM02U1 PFCA Home Equity Investment Trust 2002-IFC1
    267 IM02U2 PFCA Home Equity Investment Trust 2002-IFC2
    268 PFCA Home Equity Investment Trust 2002-IFC4
    269 IM0302 Impac CMB Trust 2003-2F
    270 IM0304 Impac CMB Trust 2003-4
    271 IM0309 Impac CMB Trust 2003-9F
    272 IM0404 Impac CMB Trust 2004-4
    273 IM0405 Impac CMB Trust 2004-5
    274 IM0407 Impac CMB Trust 2004-7
    275 IM0408 Impac CMB Trust 2004-8
    276 IM0410 Impac CMB Trust 2004-10
    277 IM0501 Impac CMB Trust 2005-1
    278 RF03QK Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QR13
    279 RF03QP Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QR19
    280 RF03QR Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-QR24
    281 RF04R1 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-QR1
    282 RF05R1 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-QR1
    283 RF08R1 Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2008-QR1
    284 RF06N7 RALI 2006-QA7 NIMS LTD.
    285 RF06N8 RALI 2006-QA8 NIMS LTD.
    286 DB07N2 DBARN Net Interest Margin 2007-QO2N Notes, Series 2007-QO2N (previously issued as RALI Series 2007-QO2 Trust, Mortgage
    Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-QO2)
    287 FB07N1 Credit Suisse NIMs Trust Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. 2007-QO1NIM (underlying trust RALI Series 2007, QO1 Trust)
    288 GC06N7 RALI NIM CI-1 Notes, Series 2006-QO4
    289 SW881 Southwest Savings 1988-1
    10 of 11
    12-12020-mg Doc 3980 Filed 06/14/13 Entered 06/14/13 13:36:11 Main Document
    Pg 14 of 15
    Exhibit A
    Issuer ID Name of Securitization Trust
    290 IM0504 Impac CMB Trust 2005-4
    291 IM0505 Impac CMB Trust 2005-5
    292 IM0507 Impac CMB Trust 2005-7
    293 IM0508 Impac CMB Trust 2005-8
    294 GC05SB Soundview Home Loan Trust 2005-B
    295 UB03I2 PFCA Home Equity Investment Trust 2003-IFC4
    296 UB03I3 PFCA Home Equity Investment Trust 2003-IFC5
    297 UB03I4 PFCA Home Equity Investment Trust 2003-IFC6
    298 UB0305 MASTR SEC TR 2003-5
    299 UB05S1 MASTR SPEC LN TR 2005-1
    300 UB06S1 MASTR SPEC LN TN 2006-1
    301 MortgageIT Trust 2005-AR1
    302 MortgageIT Trust 2006-1
    303 GC07S1 Soundview Home Loan Trust 2007-1
    304 and
    305
    AH07S1,
    AH07AS
    American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2007-SD1 Mortgaged-Backed Notes, American Home Mortgage Investment Trust
    2007-A Mortgaged-Backed Notes, Series 2007-A
    306 GC07H6 Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-6
    307 HB07L2 HSI Asset Loan Obligation Trust 2007-AR2 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-AR2
    308 MASTR SPECIALIZED LOAN TRUST 2004-02
    309 MASTR SPECIALIZED LOAN TRUST 2004-02 MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES
    310 MASTR SPECIALIZED LOAN TRUST 2004-03
    311 Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities Trust 2001-2

    residentual aNeil Larkins, on August 17, 2015 at 1:13 pm said:
    Is this common? Deutsche Bank of Americas as trustee for 2006 QS-14 was recorded 5 plus years after closing date. The entity that transferred into the trust did not have authority to sell to the trust as it had went out of business back in 2006. Also the so called copy of an original note has deutsche listed as trustee, but for what trust?
    Now they have the Depositor “Residential Acredit” as owner. They now have listed as “Deutsche Bank of Americas as trustee for Residential Acredit 2006-QS14.
    The PSA states that the depositor sold all rights to the 2006-QS-14 trust.
    Any feedback?
    Neil Larkins

  2. United States Court of Appeals

    For the Eighth Circuit

    ___________________________

    No. 12-2508

    ___________________________

    Bank of America, N.A.

    Plaintiff – Appellee

    v.

    Gary R. Peterson; Sally L. Peterson

    Defendants – Appellants

    JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., and its successors and assigns;

    Horizon Bank, National Association; Clear & Close Title Agency, Ltd.,

    also all heirs and devisees of any of the above-named persons who

    are deceased; and all other persons or entities claiming any right,

    title, estate, lien or interest in real estate described in the Summons

    and Complaint herein

    Defendants

    ____________

    Appeal from United States District Court

    for the District of Minnesota – Minneapolis

    ____________

    Submitted: March 4, 2015

    Filed: April 15, 2015

    ____________

    Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

    ____________

    WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

    This case is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court. In

    Peterson v. Bank of America, N.A., 135 S. Ct. 1153 (2015), the Court granted a writ

    of certiorari, vacated this court’s judgment in Bank of America, N.A. v. Peterson, 746

    F.3d 357 (8th Cir. 2014), and remanded the case to us for reconsidering in light of its

    decision in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 790 (2015).

    In Peterson, we relied upon our court’s decision in Keiran v. Home Capital,

    Inc., 720 F.3d 721 (8th Cir. 2013), in holding that the Petersons’ claim for rescission

    under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., was time-barred by 15

    U.S.C. § 1635(f) because of their failure to file a lawsuit within three years of their

    transaction with Bank of America. 746 F.3d at 360. The Supreme Court held in

    Jesinoski that the Keiran court had erred in holding that a borrower’s failure to file

    a suit for rescission within three years of the transaction’s consummation extinguishes

    the right to rescind and bars relief. 135 S. Ct. at 792.

    In light of the Court’s holding in Jesinoski, we vacate that portion of our

    judgment in Bank of America N.A. v. Peterson that granted Bank of America

    summary judgment on the Petersons’ claim for rescission, reinstate that portion of our

    judgment that vacated the grant of summary judgment to Bank of America on the

    Petersons’ counterclaim for statutory damages, and remand the case to the district

    court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

    ______________________________

  3. Is this common? Deutsche Bank of Americas as trustee for 2006 QS-14 was recorded 5 plus years after closing date. The entity that transferred into the trust did not have authority to sell to the trust as it had went out of business back in 2006. Also the so called copy of an original note has deutsche listed as trustee, but for what trust?
    Now they have the Depositor “Residential Acredit” as owner. They now have listed as “Deutsche Bank of Americas as trustee for Residential Acredit 2006-QS14.
    The PSA states that the depositor sold all rights to the 2006-QS-14 trust.
    Any feedback?

    Neil Larkins

  4. This instrument (Mortgage and Note) together with the Note.

    Due on Sale clause.

  5. Reliance on misrepresentations. ….
    Fraud on the Face
    Fraud in the Inducement
    Embezzlement
    Racketeering

  6. Very Nice JG!

    Misrepresenting. ……
    Non Disclosure of Risks ……
    Attack the Contract…..

  7. IN RE FIRST ALLIANCE MORTG. CO., 471 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2006)
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Filed December 8, 2006.

    “The mounting scrutiny and litigation against First Alliance caused
    alarm among some of its other lenders. By the end of 1998, First
    Alliance’s other main lenders had withdrawn all funding, due in part to
    the potential liability facing First Alliance.

    jg: Alliance was said to be writing “garbage” loans.

    When these other lenders withdrew financing, Lehman stepped forward to provide a $150 million credit line and became First Alliance’s sole source of warehouse funding and underwriting.

    jg: Lehman upped the amt of its credit to alliance in the face of multiple lawsuits against Alliance. Only reason I can surmise is crude.

    The Lehman credit facility was renewed in 1999. According to the terms of their agreement, Lehman made secured loans to First Alliance by advancing 95 percent of the value of the mortgages First Alliance pledged as collateral…..

    Between 1998 and 2000, First Alliance borrowed roughly $500 million
    from Lehman pursuant to its warehouse line of credit. When First Alliance declared bankruptcy in 2000, approximately $77 million borrowed from Lehman’s warehouse credit line remained outstanding, secured by First Alliance mortgages.
    During the course of the bankruptcy proceedings, Lehman was paid this principal amount plus interest — payments the Trustee claims on appeal were made in error.

    The district court certified a class consisting of all persons who had
    obtained First Alliance mortgage loans from May 1, 1996, through March 31, 2000, which were used as collateral for First Alliance’s warehouse credit line with Lehman or were securitized in transactions underwritten by Lehman.

    jg: well, here’s another reason: Lehman wanted loans so bad to securitize, it didn’t care what they were.

    The Borrowers obtained class certification on the basis that
    First Alliance had allegedly engaged in a uniform and systematic fraud
    against those who made up the class (of borrowers – sic), and that Lehman was liable to them for AIDING AND ABETTING this fraud under California tort law and under
    California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200.

    jg: here “MERSCorp and mers come to mind

    The basis of Lehman’s liability under the tort and UCL claims
    was that when Lehman agreed to provide the financing for First Alliance’s mortgage business, Lehman did so knowing that First Alliance loans were originated through deceptive sales procedures, and that without Lehman’s financing, First Alliance would not have been able to continue to fund its fraudulently obtained loans…..

    Lehman also attempts to undermine the class-wide fraud determination by focusing on the reliance element, arguing that the borrowers could not have justifiably relied upon oral misrepresentations when they signed documents that contradicted those oral statements. The argument is that the plaintiffs should have known better than to rely on their loan officers’ misrepresentations, because the fine print in their loan documents told “a different story.” But it was by design that the borrowers did not understand that the loan documents told a different story. The whole scheme was built on inducing borrowers to sign documents without really understanding the terms. As the district court found,
    “First Alliance borrowers justifiably relied on the representations of
    the loan officers in light of their experience and knowledge in entering
    into the loan transaction.” 298 B.R. at 668. We find unpersuasive in this case the defense that plaintiffs should not have relied on statements that were made with the fraudulent intent of inducing reliance.”

    This case has been cited in around 200 cases.

  8. It took me a very long time to try in figure out why they wanted me to refinance My mortgage….an amount substantially more (public records).

    Being a simple minded person I am ……
    I asked my council …. How do I refi or modify a note I am not payer on?
    Why is the Mortgage -Note so much higher than the borrower note?

    I do not do business with people like that!
    The same bunch who got caught with their hand in my cookie jars.

  9. The Trust is in the Instrument that created the corp estate.

  10. One last thing for those of you who have survived a 30 plus year marriage…..

    Know your State Marital and Trust Laws

  11. Remember…you need proof or it will get dismissed for…
    “Failure to State A Claim ”

    Two Way Street.

    SOL fka SOS ..
    So it goes…..

    Many Blessings to All

  12. Well that certainly did not come out right…

    The ME Rs. .. All In One was their cure because we did not need nor want a loan mod. They buried me in them…… ME do not apply.

    Nope! Attornies said… Sign nnothing and do not talk or respond to them.
    Reside and Maintain
    Pay tax and INS bills in my name as primary policy holder and loss payee. Poor hubby….😷 2nds on everything..well almost everything..😜.giggles….

    Just following rules and Standing on the sidelines.

  13. Their title attornies actions were not sufficient …….
    They thought their all in one Note and Mortgagmodification.from ME Rs. . was the cure for my failure to accept a loan modification.

    Oh MY! I know how to handle Big Bad Bullies…. I send my law abiding friends in to take a bite out of crime.

  14. DB had the courts not been steam rolled with FCs and everyone had attorneys this would not have happened to begin with.

    So now title insurers will NOT insure 2ndary market transaction gone a stray.

    See Harm Yet?

  15. So True…when they take the note in blank and file without the mortgage assignment….they almost NEVER release the LPs.
    It took my lawyers almost 5 years to clear CW BOGUS claim to title.
    Late 2012 and 2 service transfers I get one releasing it from an unnamed party.

    See harm here?

  16. nothing is owed to original creditor, why that you may say, because i gave the pretender lender my signature on my note,

    The Massachusetts Supreme Court Case – What this has to do with you
    Just last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled on two very important cases regarding foreclosures that affects many people in foreclosure. This has caused quite a bit of stir among those in the foreclosure defense community. I would like to share with you some of the conclusions and implications that is a result of these rulings. Here are some of the pertinent points from the ruling:

    Case points from U.S. Bank v. Ibanez, 10694, Supreme Judicial Court of
    Massachusetts:

    “We have long held that a conveyance of real property, such as a
    mortgage, that does not name the assignee conveys nothing and is
    void,”the Supreme Judicial Court said

    “the court ruled that an otherwise valid confirmatory assignment was not
    sufficient to prove right to foreclose.”

    The banks argued, as does the securitization industry, that the right to
    a mortgage follows the sale of the promissory note it secures, and since
    they held the notes, they should be deemed to have the right to the
    mortgage.

    The court disagreed.

    “where a note has been assigned but there is no written assignment of
    the mortgage underlying the note, the assignment of the note does not
    carry with it the assignment of the mortgage,”

    ** This not only applies to Massachusetts.

    “This decision affirms our belief that the onus should be on the banks
    and other holders of notes to follow proper procedures before initiating
    foreclosure on any Massachusetts homeowner,” state Attorney General
    Martha Coakley

    “there must be proof that the assignment was made by a party that itself
    held the mortgage,” the court said

    The court rejected the banks’ request to apply the decision only to
    future foreclosures.

    “All that has changed is the plaintiffs’ apparent failure to abide by
    those principles and requirements” in the law “in the rush to sell
    mortgage-backed securities,” …. They broke the law and in so doing
    committed FRAUD.

    Justice Robert J. Cordy said he was struck by “the utter carelessness
    with which the plaintiff banks documented the titles to their assets.”
    1) A Defective Instrument is forever defective.

    A defective promissory note or deed of trust is like bad food; once it’s gone bad, you can not fix it. In other words, if it can be proven that a note has been bifurcated (ie. the note is sold to one party and the deed of trust was not assigned AT THE TIME IT WAS SOLD, then it is defective). You can not go back and fix it.

    All documentations has to be proper at the time of the Notice of Default or the process is deemed improper thus violating State Civil Code governing foreclosures because a foreclosure must be done by the real party of interest.

    2) Perfection of Chain of Title

    Related to 1) is the fact that the chain of title for both the Deed of Trust as well as the Promissory Note must be “perfected”. This means all assignments must be properly done to both.

    On the Promissory Note, the proper endorsements on the back must be signed from a party that is authorized to assign the note to another party.

    On the Deed of Trust/Mortgage, once an assignment is done for the promissory note, then the appropriate assignment must be done at the County recorder’s lane record for the property. This is ALMOST NEVER DONE.

    3) A Blank Assignment is not perfection

    It is STANDARD BANK PRACTICE to do blank assignments.

    Let me say this again.

    It is STANDARD PRACTICE when a note has been securitized, they ALWAYS do a blank assignment held in a vault somewhere in the event a foreclosure happens. When they need to foreclose, they then take that note and either “reverse engineer” the appropriate assignments to suite their needs or just give the note in blank to the appropriate party to foreclose.

    For example, if the note went from A to B, to ….Z. And Bank Z is now foreclosing…all they do is take the note with a blank assignment and give it to Z to foreclose.

    The Supreme Court ruled that this does not follow proper UCC procedure governing a negotiable instrument.

    Possession of the note is not enough.

    .

    So What does this have to do with me? I’m in foreclosure right now.
    If you are in foreclosure, then you should get a copy of the court case and read it. Understand it. Internalize it. Own it. (this case is available to our foreclosure defense members under the Reference file)

    If you are in a Judicial State (ie. your lender has to sue you), then you should bring this case to court and “Motion the Court to take mandatory Judicial Notice”, and include the case as a Memorandum of Law in the caption. (this is included in the documents for foreclosure defense members).

    You should then file an objection to require that your lender provide proof of standing quoting this Supreme Court ruling. Specifically, the requirement to provide proof of perfection of chain of title for both the Mortgage and the Promissory note that proves that they had standing at the time of the Notice of Default.

    .

    If you are in a Non-Judicial State, then you will need to file a civil action against your lender to require them to provide proof of claim; specifically that they have proper standing to foreclose. This means that they must demonstrate that they have perfection of chain of title for both the Deed of Trust and the Promissory note at the time of the issuance of the Notice of Default.

    You should also notify the Trustee of this and put them on notice that they are complicit in committing fraud against you. This makes them directly liable should it be proven later that fraud has indeed been committed. Without this notice, they are immune because they were simply doing their job.

    Of course, before you can sue anyone, you will need proof. The Plaintiff has the burden of proof. If you have evidence of movement (ie. the loan moved from Bank A to Bank B, to Bank C), AND there was no matching assignment at the county recorder’s office, then this is evidence. If you have evidence that the loan has been securitized, then you can submit this as proof. Remember, without proof, your case will be dismissed for “failure to state a claim”.

    Obviously, the process of litigating against one’s lender is a harrowing one and should not be taken lightly. You should consult an attorney if possible. If you can’t afford an attorney and would like to do it yourself, then you should gather as much evidence of fraud as possible. This means going down to the County Records department and get a title search for your property to find all assignments.

    You should study up on your State’s Civil Procedures to know the rules of your state in regards to civil litigation.

    You should then learn the rules of court by getting Jurisdictionary by Dr. Frederic Gray. This is the absolute MUST READ and MUST HAVE resource if you are even considering litigation. I give it my highest recommendation.

    If you need help with the process, then we invite you to join our foreclosure defense membership program.

    Obviously, if you are facing a trustee sale in the next 30 days or so, you don’t have time. If this is the case, then we recommend you read our guide on how to stop a Foreclosure Trustee Sale.

    Share on Facebook

  17. Creditors gave up all rights to handle their assets.
    KC ask and ask and ask for borrowers payoff…..
    No talk to KC……

  18. Title Insurer asks for Proof MERS was paid.

    If settlers deposited deed.into MERs asset funding Co..
    Sell CFD. …..collect in advance.

    So if settlers deposit of deed was to funding Co….
    Long arm Of borrowers lender named on note and the buyer….is a MERScorp member…..would that make me as a settler and depositor a MERScorp member?

    oh. Never mind.
    That’s why I pay legal eagles.

  19. David… Must have something to do with the…..
    Original Creditor getting paid for the sale of the note.
    For the Life of me…. Its the Original Creditor.

    How much is owed the Original Creditor?

  20. i would agree, but now , now in 2012 the first assignment of mortgage from mers came in, acting for gmac mortgage corp/ by the way was out of business in 2006/ but someone from mers corp/ sign as agent for gmac mortgage corp, assining mortgage to a trust. that closed in 2006. and has been trying for over 5 yrs now , to foreclose on me.

    everytime a sale come up, am at the house, and show them my paperwork , and they run away. tryed 3 times in 5 yrs to have a sale.

    no sale still. and after i sent them my rescission, havent herd a thing for over 4 months now. not a peep.

  21. In a mortgage the lender is grants a lien on the HOUSE!
    Fraud on the Face of the Contract and in the inducement.

    Chew on this awhile…..
    Contract for Deed

    Why those who claimed to represent the estate……
    Why those I hired to dispute it…..
    And the borrowers lawyer….

    Dispute the facts….

  22. ian, DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS. is and was not registerd with sec of state for doing business in the state of mass. i have check.

    so this is was a way for this bank to do business in a state that wouldnt let them do business in there state.

    the funds came from them for my refi. that i do know. the wire tranfer of credit, show it came from them for my mortgage.

  23. “If your claimant derived its alleged interest from “GMAC”, the court had no juris to hear its claim. This is something that may be raised at any time to my knowledge – lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ”

    Well, darn, david. What you’ll be concerned with is probably what looks like this: GMAC as note payee / lender. “MERS” as mtgee or ben. End from gmac to deutsche and deutsche to who knows who but path to claimant. Assgt from “mers” to claimant. Your only salvation in my lay person view is the funding info you have which, without evid to the contrary demonstrates that GMAC wasn’t the lender and thus its own endorsement isn’t worth the ink or stamp it took.
    more lay opinion, not advice

  24. I am not a gambling person but I would lay a bet …..
    That the fool whonstole the title to OUR estate and gambled with it on WS and tried to bankruptcy our estate won’t do it again!

  25. david: “so if this was assign over to them on 8 nov 2005, then anything in the registry of deed to should be to them. they should of file the mortgage in there name at registry of deeds.”

    I’m going to hazard that if this saw the light of day, which it should, it might be first impression. The disposition depends on some facts, though. Is this a mortgage or a deed of trust? If you said, I forget.
    Longan v Carpenter app said a mtg follows a note. A mtg is not a dot. apparently, with mtgs, with which I’ve never worked, there’s an actual conveyance to the mortgagee v into a trust like with a dot, but even that, in a dot, is only one form of title. The borrower retains the other. A “mtg” may be treated as an encumberance, however. I really don’t know. (The borrower’s still the ‘record owner’, so if you look under his name, you’ll find the real property being owned by him). If you look under “mers” or the lenders of yesteryear, you’ll find a document called a lien or mtg, not a property transfer per se, I think, but again, was never my thing.
    The statute of frauds, which may not have been around when that case was decided, requires these real property interests and transfers to be evidenced by a writing (and recordation of the writing requires acknowledgment by a notary first), which imo 86’s a coll instrument following a note, or more accurately, 86’s a transfer of interest in the collateral interest by way of the note’s transfer. My position fwiw has been and still is that he who pays for a note and it’s transferred to him such that he’s the creditor and has the right to payments is entitled to an assignment of (the interest in) the coll instrument, but doesn’t have that interest til he gets a written assgt (in which case, at least in states which adhere to the security first rule, he has nothing to enforce, being without the coll instrument on which he must first act). The NV SC cited some “Restatement” * for the proposition that a dot follows a note, but the Restatement didn’t speak to the statute of frauds, as does not the UCC, btw, far as I know (which admittedly isn’t very far).
    When A transfers a note to B, B needs a written assgt of the coll instrument. He may have acquired the right to payments under the note, but he’s without remedy against the property for non-payment without a written assignment of the coll instrumen. imo.

    So in your deal, where Deutsche was either 1) thee lender or 2) had, prior to recordation, been (let’s say) transferred all the rights in the the note, but GMAC still had the collateral instrument, it’s hard to say about rec of the coll instrument as if GMAC still had rights under the note. Imo, the coll instrument without the debt is worthless, as courts ruled early on in this mess of a mess. Okay, so say it’s worthless, certainly to GMAC (unless you’re in AZ!), so what about recording it when Deutsche is ‘on first’? If Deutsche funding the loan meant it was the lender, than GMAC didn’t belong in a coll instrument in the first place, as a dot identifies a lender (who SHOULD sure as heck be the ben). If Deutsche were thee lender, the note and collateral aren’t bifurcated, there’s no collateral instrument which secures the note and the coll instrument may be a false recording.
    If Deutsche were not thee lender, because this special endorsement was for purposes of a warehouse line (and I thought those ends were in blank fwiw here or any time) security interest, then maybe there’s no problem. BUT a special endorsement, one to an identified party,
    is suspect for that purpose imo.

    The endorsed note, taken with no evidence to the contrary (1) if that’s even possible, that there could be evidence the special end isn’t what it appears to be and 2) endorsements alone transfer rights and interest), and the fact that Deutsche funded the loan
    says Deutsche was thee lender and GMAC had and has no interest. That would mean I don’t know what all, but prob that your home is unencumbered.
    If your claimant derived its alleged interest from “GMAC”, the court had no juris to hear its claim. This is something that may be raised at any time to my knowledge – lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

    These are strictly lay opinions, not advice of any kind – ask a lawyer

  26. Where the Grantor possesses NO interest witch can be conveyed.

  27. The settlers aka the Estate…..
    But title is not held by the Estate…
    It was deposited into trust …………
    The instrument is very telling.

  28. The property tax/land taxes are billed in the name of the settlers.
    The mortgage statement comes in the name of the borrower only…not all settlers names.
    The borrower hold title via trust deed.

    Think About It!

  29. Right Ian! AWL … Oh Boy…did we investors get hit with that one.

    It does not change the fact that in PPM there are two trusts.

  30. Jg- its a moot point as per db last post. A simple mispelling of DeutschBank. But while we are at it I seem to remember that one or more of Deutsch Bank’s subsidiaries wasnt properly registered in one or more states. Like America’s Wholesale Lender. Worth checking.

  31. That trust can not be …. Dissolved on the debt of only one settler.
    Unless You don’t pay….
    They charge service and trustee fees….ugh..bad deal for me.

    So asked by KC. .. What do KC owe?

    Do not try to intimidate or bully KC!

  32. The Trust is created in the Instrument that creates the living estate.
    MERS blurs who….
    The Trust name further blurs who…
    Attack the Contract!
    In PPM s …. There are 2 trusts.
    Who deposited what into each?

    The brokers buyers….the capital asset funding (merscorp members).
    And the deed goes to…..YEP!

    And the living estate irrevocably transfers WHAT in the Instrument?

    The Trust is created in the Instrument!

  33. jg, i spelled it wrong, i did send to you a copy of the wet ink not i got from closing attorney from my closing file. the wet ink is from the the endoresment. that was done on a copy of my note.

    all i was saying is if the mortgage and or note even was assign over the same day as signing , then anything that the mortgage and note would have to done by that bank, that gmac mortgage corporation sign over that day. without rescourse to dbtca. = DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS.

    so if this was assign over to them on 8 nov 2005, then anything in the registry of deed to should be to them. they should of file the mortgage in there name at registry of deeds .

    but gmac mortgage corporation put the mortgage on saying they were the holders and owners of the mortgage , on 14 nov 2005.

    so i feel that anything on record at registry of deeds office, could not be legal/ lagit/ . if it has anything to do with gmac mortgage corp.

    thats what am saying. because DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS. as of 8 nov 2005 was new owner of note.

  34. They tell me nothing…
    I know nothing…

    Well… I know about the missing deeds.
    Title Abstract….er
    And I know the issues with selling…..and title insurance, proof the intervening parties (or lack of)….

    Standing on the Sidelines…
    Many Blessings to All!

  35. Forthepeople….. I have always had attorney for RE. .Tax matters…
    Estate matters and Business matters my whole life. I already had the resources. Unfortunately my Estate attorney of 30 plus years ran for Sheriff and had been the last 8 years….conflict of interest with his position as Sheriff. But his referrals the last 2 years are all now either BK Judge…Associate Judge…or work for the Federal Presecuters Office. I am so Proud of them All! When you grow up in a community…and raise you children …who raise their children here…
    You learn who the Good Guys and the Bad Guys are.

    There are Bad Apples in Every Profession.
    Greed and or Ignorance ….

  36. ABS s on service advances.
    Advances of Tax INS trustee fee to steal….
    Why not….AB?

    Sure it is….
    Infinite rehype…..

  37. Ian: “- of course there is a Deutsch Bank – but no “Dauscher Bank”- not that I can find in 15 mins of searching. What the hell? I wouldnt go beyond Dauscher Bank, anything beyond that is is void. Did you have an address for said bank?”

    I don’t understand your question. I found no Dauscher anything, x private individuals with that last name. David said his loan was funded by an entity I can’t find. I don’t know anything beyond what I said (like is Dauscher a ‘formerly known as’ of Deutsche or a name of Deutsche in another country.) Any address for the Deutsche Bank Trust Americas might be found all over…..I didn’t look, since I was looking for “Dauscher”. But I would think that if there is or were a
    “dauscher”, there’s a trail somewhere. If the note says “Dauscher” and it were really Deutsche who funded the loan, I certainly can’t explain it other than purely speculating it’s the name of a foreign outfit, but even so, SOMEthing should show up.

    This is the closest I got or at least all I got and that’s only if David got the ‘R’ wrong for a “d”, which if typed or a stamp, must be that he didn’t.

    Dain Rauscher Wessels was a brokerage and investment banking firm based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The firm traced its origins to a number of smaller regional securities firms founded in the 1920s and 1930s.

    “In 2000, Dain Rauscher Wessels was acquired by Royal Bank of Canada and operated as a subsidiary under the name RBC Dain Rauscher. In 2008, RBC ended the usage of the Dain Rauscher brand. It is now known as RBC Wealth Management.

    Dain Rauscher Wessels was one of the nation’s largest full-service securities firms with 1,300 private client and institutional investment executives, 3,600 employees and 1998 revenues of more than $740 million. The company serviced individual retail investors primarily in the western U.S., and capital markets and correspondent clients in select markets throughout the nation. The company’s broker-dealer was a member of the New York Stock Exchange and other major securities exchanges, as well as the Securities Investor Protection Corp. The company was previously traded on the NYSE under the symbol DRC.”

    I guess it’s possible they created a temporary, phony account to deal with funneling investors’ funds, if they did that. But of course, that kind of speculation doesn’t get answers. IF David got the name right and there is and was no entity with that name, I suppose it’d take an A-list attorney to make an issue of it. But he could try. Or look forever for a dba in secretary of states offices and other places, but given the general prohibition on the use of the word “bank” by non-banks, doubt he’d find anything unless a real bank (Deutsche?) may file such a dba, which I seriously doubt. But this is the real Cole Porter age of Anything Goes, apparently. Let’s just hope time gone by was the time of “You ain’t seen nothing yet”. ( I mean seriously, ABS’s on servicer advances? Isn’t that evidence the advances are money-making propositions?)

    MERS HAS TO GO AND SO DOES SECURITIZATION.
    lay opinions

  38. Contrary to what We The People have been led to believe, the banks are NOT the government and the government is NOT the banks.

    We are entering an election cycle to establish the leading executive for the country…

    There is no longer ANY excuse…

    Every politician that seeks office must be ready, willing and able to renounce the current fraud that is the central banking system.

    Thus far, the ONLY one doing so is Bernie Sanders and others among what is called the “Elizabeth Warren Wing” of the Democratic Party.

    HillBillary Clinton is simply another STOOGE for Wall Street.

  39. John gault- of course there is a Deutsch Bank – but no “Dauscher Bank”- not that I can find in 15 mins of searching. What the hell? I wouldnt go beyond Dauscher Bank, anything beyond that is is void. Did you have an address for said bank?

  40. dandiener1,

    OUTSTANDING!

    Exactly what is going on.

    The government is NOT our enemy. Instead, it is the international, central bankers; what is called the “Troika” in Europe.

    The US is uniquely suited to defy the international, criminal, private banking cartel.

    Our Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves, We The people, have allowed it to continue this far.

    Renounce the bankers, Repudiate the debt, they are both a FRAUD!

  41. David: “first/ the mortgage / note says GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, AS LENDER.
    THE WIRE TRANSFER SAY DAUSCHER BANK AND TRUST AMERICAS,
    NOTE WAS ENDORSE AND PAYABLE TO , WITHOUT RECOURSE TO DAUSCHER BANK TRUST AMERICAS.
    ON 8 NOV 2005. ”

    A cursory google search found no ‘dauscher bta’, but did find a ‘deutsche bank trust americas’.

    GMAC is in the group of those I call “bigger fish”, in fact they qual as Biggest Fish in the lending world, I’d say. Bigger fish, when not banks (or for all I know when banks), have warehouse lines of credit to fund loans (they don’t need to use others’ w/h lines). I’ve taken your info collectively to mean the end. wasn’t on the note when you signed it, but was endorsed the same day as funding (?) by wire. I can’t tell and I think no one can tell why “dauscher” funded this loan or if they did. I’d hazard they did from experience (tho not with those players). But if they did so pursuant to a contract (for the w/h line) to do so and it merely gave them a sec interest in the loan, no harm no foul imo. I’ve thought that end. on notes heading to the w/h lender were done in blank, but my memory comes and goes. You said this was a ‘special’ endorsement, one made payable to a part. party, which makes me question the transaction between the two. If ‘dauscher’ funded the loan and CONCURRENTLY obtained the rights to payment UNDER the note itself (v payment of the loan to GMAC), I’d call dauscher the lender / creditor, but I’m not an expert on the UCC nor do I have all pertinent facts and no one’s getting them without discovery. Without it, how could one know why gmac end’d to dauscher, if it were use of loc or if gmac merely originated the loan for dauscher and dauscher was the actual lender. Those contracts between the GMAC’s and the
    Dauschers or Deutsches matter. imo. The question is, I think, WHO had the right to payment under the note when you signed it and the loan was funded, (each of which had to happen for a loan to be made).
    I don’t know dauscher’s business and can’t find them to try to know (w/h lender? secn’ participant?) You could try calling the regulatory agency for banks *(name escapes me this minute) to see who they are or were. Or do some of your good research and find them and their connection with sec’n, if any.

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40249.pdf

    This link has info called “Who regulates Whom”

    *the use of the word “bank” is generally prohibited to those not banks, but who knows these days

    strictly lay opinions

  42. The Financial Crisis 2008-2009 – A different perspective.

    GREECE — THE ONE BIGGEST LIE YOU ARE BEING TOLD BY THE MEDIA

    Every single mainstream media has the following narrative for the economic crisis in Greece: the government spent too much money and went broke; the generous banks gave them money, but Greece still can’t pay the bills because it mismanaged the money that was given. It sounds quite reasonable, right?

    Except that it is a big fat lie … not only about Greece, but about other European countries such as Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland who are all experiencing various degrees of austerity. It was also the same big, fat lie that was used by banks and corporations to exploit many Latin American, Asian and African countries for many decades.

    Greece did not fail on its own. It was made to fail.

    In summary, the banks wrecked the Greek government, and then deliberately pushed it into unsustainable debt … while revenue-generating public assets were sold off to oligarchs and international corporations. The rest of the article is about how and why.

    If you are a fan of mafia movies, you know how the mafia would take over a popular restaurant. First, they would do something to disrupt the business – stage a murder at the restaurant or start a fire. When the business starts to suffer, the Godfather would generously offer some money as a token of friendship. In return, Greasy Thumb takes over the restaurant’s accounting, Big Joey is put in charge of procurement, and so on. Needless to say, it’s a journey down a spiral of misery for the owner who will soon be broke and, if lucky, alive.

    Now, let’s map the mafia story to international finance in four stages.

    Stage 1: The first and foremost reason that Greece got into trouble was the “Great Financial Crisis” of 2008 that was the brainchild of Wall Street and international bankers. If you remember, banks came up with an awesome idea of giving subprime mortgages to anyone who can fog a mirror. They then packaged up all these ticking financial bombs and sold them as “mortgage-backed securities” for a huge profit to various financial entities in countries around the world.

    A big enabler of this criminal activity was another branch of the banking system, the group of rating agencies – S&P, Fitch and Moody’s – who gave stellar ratings to these destined-to-fail financial products. Unscrupulous politicians such as Tony Blair joined Goldman Sachs and peddled these dangerous securities to pension funds and municipalities and countries around Europe. Banks and Wall Street gurus made hundreds of billions of dollars in this scheme.

    But this was just Stage 1 of their enormous scam. There was much more profit to be made in the next three stages!

    Stage 2 is when the financial time bombs exploded. Commercial and investment banks around the world started collapsing in a matter of weeks. Governments at local and regional level saw their investments and assets evaporate. Chaos everywhere!

    Vultures like Goldman Sachs and other big banks profited enormously in three ways: one, they could buy other banks such as Lehman brothers and Washington Mutual for pennies on the dollar. Second, more heinously, Goldman Sachs and insiders such as John Paulson (who recently donated $400 million to Harvard) had made bets that these securities would blow up. Paulson made billions, and the media celebrated his acumen. (For an analogy, imagine the terrorists betting on 9/11 and profiting from it.) Third, to scrub salt in the wound, the big banks demanded a bailout from the very citizens whose lives the bankers had ruined! Bankers have chutzpah. In the U.S., they got hundreds of billions of dollars from the taxpayers and trillions from the Federal Reserve Bank which is nothing but a front group for the bankers.

    In Greece, the domestic banks got more than $30 billion of bailout from the Greek people. Let that sink in for a moment – the supposedly irresponsible Greek government had to bail out the hardcore capitalist bankers.

    Stage 3 is when the banks force the government to accept massive debts. For a biology metaphor, consider a virus or a bacteria. All of them have unique strategies to weaken the immune system of the host.One of the proven techniques used by the parasitic international bankers is to downgrade the bonds of a country. And that’s exactly what the bankers did, starting at the end of 2009. This immediately makes the interest rates (“yields”) on the bonds go up, making it more and more expensive for the country to borrow money or even just roll over the existing bonds.

    From 2009 to mid 2010, the yields on 10-year Greek bonds almost tripled! This cruel financial assault brought the Greek government to its knees, and the banksters won their first debt deal of a whopping 110 billion Euros.

    The banks also control the politics of nations. In 2011, when the Greek prime minister refused to accept a second massive bailout, the banks forced him out of the office and immediately replaced him with the Vice President of ECB (European Central Bank)! No elections needed. Screw democracy. And what would this new guy do? Sign on the dotted line of every paperwork that the bankers bring in.

    (By the way, the very next day, the exact same thing happened in Italy where the Prime Minister resigned, only to be replaced by a banker/economist puppet. Ten days later, Spain had a premature election where a “technocrat” banker puppet won the election).

    The puppet masters had the best month ever in November 2011.

    Few months later, in 2012, the exact bond market manipulation was used when the banksters turned up the Greek bonds’ yields to 50%!!! This financial terrorism immediately had the desired effect: The Greek parliament agreed to a second massive bailout, even larger than the first one.

    Now, here is another fact that most people don’t understand. The loans are not just simple loans like you would get from a credit card or a bank. These loans come with very special strings attached that demand privatization of a country’s assets. If you have seen Godfather III, you would remember Hyman Roth, the investor who was carving up Cuba among his friends. Replace Hyman Roth with Goldman Sachs or IMF (International Monetary Fund) or ECB, and you get the picture.

    Stage 4: Now, the rape and humiliation of a nation begin. For the debt that was forced upon them, Greece had to sell many of its profitable assets to oligarchs and international corporations. And privatizations are ruthless, involving everything and anything that is profitable. In Greece, privatization included water, electricity, post offices, airport services, national banks, telecommunication, port authorities (which is huge in a country that is a world leader in shipping) etc.

    In addition to that, the banker tyrants also get to dictate every single line item in the government’s budget. Want to cut military spending? NO! Want to raise tax on the oligarchs or big corporations? NO! Such micro-management is non-existent in any other creditor-debtor relationship.

    So what happens after privatization and despotism under bankers? Of course, the government’s revenue goes down and the debt increases further. How do you “fix” that? Of course, cut spending! Lay off public workers, cut minimum wage, cut pensions (same as our social security), cut public services, and raise taxes on things that would affect the 99% but not the 1%. For example, pension has been cut in half and sales tax increase to more than 20%. All these measures have resulted in Greece going through a financial calamity that is worse than the Great Depression of the U.S. in the 1930s.

    Of course, the ever-manipulative bankers demand immediate privatization of all media which means that the country now gets photogenic TV anchors who spew propaganda every day and tell the people that crooked and greedy banksters are saviors; and slavery under austerity is so much better than the alternative.

    If every Greek person had known the truth about austerity, they wouldn’t have fallen for this. Same goes for Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland and other countries going through austerity.The sad aspect of all this is that these are not unique strategies. Since World War II, these predatory practices have been used countless times by the IMF and the World Bank in Latin America, Asia, and Africa.

    This is the essence of the New World Order — a world owned by a handful of corporations and banks.

    So, it’s time for the wonderful people of Greece to rise up like Zeus and say NO (“OXI” in Greece) to the greedy puppet masters, unpatriotic oligarchs, parasitic bankers and corrupt politicians.

    Dear Greece, know that the world is praying for you. Vote NO to austerity. Say YES to freedom, independence, self-government, and democracy. Yes, democracy, the word that was invented by YOU!

    P.S. (You can also watch this video where John Perkins – author of “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” – talks about exploitation of Latin American and Asian countries using the same tools of debt-austerity-privatization. He used to do this for a living! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVsB07CcSNw

  43. Lender or creditor are not interchangeable.

    example. I can purchase a pen for value and be the creditor of that pen.

    Someone can loan the pen to a people who asked to use it.

    Loaning something that is already purchased does not make the lender the creditor.

    I butchered it, but the meaning is the same.
    The one loaning or calling itself the lender did not put any money into the transaction for that pen to have been used by the one who asked to use it.

    No offense, please. A diatribe of observation maybe even I have been doing in past postings before I learned more nothings above the no-things I knew before.

    Lender and creditor are NOT interchangeable
    only a Creditor can foreclose, by definition of a foreclosure
    A contract is NOT consummated until the creditor is known.
    The lender is not the creditor.
    The contract is not consummated.
    Someone will ignore this no matter how many times it’s written.
    They will get stuck on three days or three years after consummation without realizing it was never consummated.

    It’s like looking at an empty milk bottle that has an expiration date 7 days out,

    The empty milk bottle remains empty, and the expiration date remains on the empty milk bottle.

    8 days later, someone claims the expiration date has passed, and ignores the fact that the bottle had never been filled with milk.
    Should it get filled with milk a month later, someone would say the milk is spoiled upon being filled because the expiration date shown on the bottle has passed.

    People must, if they have the capability, they must look at the facts and leave all inferences out.

    Do you know the creditor, if you read all the documents you have, is the word creditor on any sheet of paper you received or signed? And if the word is there, does it identify who it is referring to when it mentions the creditor?

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life

  44. LOL Ian.

    Trespass Unwanted

  45. Trespass- astute observation. I too have seen the term “quitclaim” replaced by “quickclaim” a dozen times and had reasoned that it was another mispelling, now that “spellcheck” seems to have replaced the ability to spell, calculators seem to have replaced the ability to add, subtract, multiply and divide, and the mainstream media has replaced the ability of the population at large to reason, think critically, ad infinitum.
    Now i have to read into the context in which the bogus “quickclaim” appears.
    Thanks for pointing this out. Went right over my head! Damn! Ain’t as sharp as i thunk.

  46. Is there some special training with attorneys to have typos in their works so there is plausible deniability of things?
    Attorneys know there is no quickclaim deed. Doesn’t exist.

    Even reading the works it’s clear the term is quitclaim.

    Why typo it here in the blog? We will never know.

    /2015/08/2015-08-10-0001.pdf
    Just add that line to the link to this site and the document opens.

    The transaction required Graves to execute a quitclaim deed in favor of a corporate entity under Wayman’s control. The day after Graves executed the deed, he sent a timely cancellation notice, as was his statutory right, to Wayman, who refused to cancel the transaction.

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

  47. QUESTION PEOPLE,

    1/ mortgage note, on same day as signing on the mortgage and note was endorsed over without recourse to the real party that funded the table funded loan. and i know this because i have copy of the note that was signed over , and the wire transfer fund from same bank that funded the mortgage and note.

    not the lender or creditor on mortgage and note.

    now it is sign with real signature, and dated, 8 nov 2005.

    it is not a stamp. but wet ink.

    who would be owner of the mortgage and note from 8 nov 2005??

    who name should the mortgage have been recorded in at registry of deeds office?

    and who should of all the tila / form come from.

    and is there a true consummation date with lender or creditor on that date. 8 nov 2005.

    first/ the mortgage / note says GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, AS LENDER.

    THE WIRE TRANSFER SAY DAUSCHER BANK AND TRUST AMERICAS,

    NOTE WAS ENDORSE AND PAYABLE TO , WITHOUT RECOURSE TO DAUSCHER BANK TRUST AMERICAS.

    ON 8 NOV 2005.

    WAS THIS MORTGAGE EVER CONSUMMATED???????

  48. Thanks JG
    Yes im still pressing it … With the irs
    Because it is fraud and im not the only person who these servicers ( debt collectors) did this to – i was “used ” to the full amount of the face value of yhe note, so its a public interest point on my part and a public duty for irs and they, under the irs rules must apply their codes under authoritive law snd no outside their powers.
    Its not far out to assume there are thousands of these 1099a issued under a huge ” cloud”

  49. http://www.mortgagebankingsolutions.com/warehouse_lines_of_credit_213.html

    LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT

    “Generally accepted accounting principals usually call for a loan-type warehouse line to be disclosed as a liability on the balance sheet of a mortgage lender, and the corresponding mortgage loans to be disclosed as an asset, usually “Mortgage Loans Held for Resale”. The MBS Group with warehouse lending specializes in providing warehouse lines of credit to existing and emerging mortgage bankers nationwide. A warehouse line of credit is a revolving line of credit. Money is borrowed on the line and added to your bottom line with a warehouse line of credit. Learn more about the warehouse lines of credit provied by MBS. We have the cash flow and credibility needed to make the leap. Anticipated revenue on the pending sale of the mortgage loans is not recognized until the investor actually purchases the loans, regardless of whether firm commitments to purchase exist.

    A line extended under a “Warehouse Loan and Security Agreement” (loan-type) is a commercial loan between the warehouse lender and the mortgage lender. The warehouse lender takes a security interest in each mortgage loan originated with the warehouse line, and the mortgage lender owns each mortgage loan from the day it is disbursed until the day it is purchased by an investor. ”

    WAREHOUSE LINE PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT

    The mortgage lender has the right to re-purchase the mortgage loan, and the re-purchase price is higher than the price “paid” by the warehouse lender, effectively providing the warehouse lender with “interest” on his “loaned” funds. Purchase-type agreements are popular for several reasons. A line extended under a “Warehouse lines of credit Participation Agreement” (purchase-type) is actually not a loan at all, but rather a purchase agreement between the warehouse lender and the mortgage lender. The warehouse lender usually purchases a 100% participation interest in each loan originated under the warehouse line, thereby actually owning the mortgage loan.
    Therefore, a warehouse line of credit owned by smaller financial institutions can extend larger lines without violating their “loans-to-one-borrower” restrictions.”

  50. Anyone with the wherewithall: if in fact (some) loans weren’t funded for a month or longer (not really even that long) after the note is signed, one reason could be that the “bigger fish” skipped the use of a warehouse line of credit or his own funds and went straight to sale of the loan with the sale actually funding the loan. NG says the deriv investors’ money was being used and maybe it was. He’s never explained why he thinks that, so I haven’t personally dwelled on it. But at any rate, in addn to the fraudulent (as in by design) charge to the borrower of unearned interest from the ‘date of docs’ v the funding date, there’s something quite amiss when loans don’t fund for a month or longer. Loans should fund on the “day of docs” with purchases and non-owner occupied refi’s, 4 business days after day of docs in non-escrow states on owner-occupied refi’s, and up to 7 days max after day of docs on o/o refi’s in escrow states. Caveat: I have little experience with escrow states, but in non-escrow states, these times are fundamental. We need the funding date. The sad news, if it’s news, is that if one can think of a method, it’s not out of the park to think that gang would do the thing. imo.

  51. DW, not boring at all, not one bit. It’s just that none of us know what to do about it. I certainly wish I had some idea, but I don’t other than to do what you’re doing, which is duking it out in the court system. Pretty sure you said you already tried the IRS.

  52. JG – im pro se and I tried to stuck to the facts, and not allege what i could not substantiate, i can substantiate that the issuer ofvthe 1099a is the servicer and not the lender. I used what i had discovered and what they had submitted on the record to try to get the court to allow me to be heard, and im still trying and sharing so who ever else has the same or similar might question the facts, i know im getting boring re 1099a but in My case, it calls into question what they submitted to the court at the same time, which as todays post points out, is based on nothing that would hold up if they were made to substantiate how they became the RPII or authorized agents of, the recordings are screwed up like eveyone elses. They have gotten by in their P-o-s-h suits and favors, but they may run out of favors before running out of those” suits” because that is all these people are, stuffed suits, hows that for a well educated lifes work, its such a shame, i would have loved the chance of such an education. Like my Dad always said ” you do the best you can with what you got”

  53. Ian…

    Ocwen kept insinuating themselves into my homeowners policy by sending my insurance company a “notice” (along with thousands of other policyholders ) stating my mortgage contract named them as the escrow agent for taxes and insurance.

    Nothing could be farther from the truth.. my initial contract specifically indicates that nothing was to be escrowed – because I did not want *anyone* claiming a “right” to make any part of my loan payment.

    (IMO, many other policyholders don’t pay attention to the “loss payee” of their policy. This could expose them to foreclosure if the escrow agent intentionally underpaid insurance premiums or taxes, and then claim “the taxes/premiums were not (fully) paid” thus triggering foreclosure in njf states.)

    I informed my agent that because I was the payor and owner of my policy, if he wanted me to continue to use him as *my* agent, he would name me as the “sole loss payee”! If there is a covered loss, any claim proceeds will be paid to me and any “interloper” will have to sue me successfully and get a judgement against me to get back any disputed claim payment.

    He agreed and replaced Ocwen as Loss Payee and named me.

    As soon as the change was made, Ocwen sent another “escrow instruction letter” to my insurance company along with theit “file of all of their ‘borrowers’ who pay premiums to _____ insurance company.”

    For several months, I watched my “loss payee designation” being automatically changed back to Ocwen.

    This is being done with every insurance company that insures homes…. the insurance companies do not request proof that the policyholders have authorized mortgage servicers to create “Robo/Cyber Loss Payees” in this way.

    (BTW, they also use this tactic to name themselves as the escrow agent for paying county property taxes.)

    I finally ended this “scoundrel shuffle” by meeting with my agent who had been working with my insurance company to remedy this issue. We got the home office on the phone and had this discussion… Me: “I sold life insurance for nearly 40 years and, working with my clients, we often changed policy owner and/or beneficiary designations. You guys have done this too, right? Ok, is there any reason you cannot make a final Loss Payee change (because I’m the Policy Owner, right?). You agree! Good! Before we finish this phone conversation, designate me as the “Irrevocable Loss Payee” per my instruction in accordance with my several rights as the owner of the policy!”

    That done, Ocwen no longer mysteriously “appears” to rob me of my Loss Payee status.

    (And, yes, to minimize my exposure to fraudulent scoundrels, I had the same basic discussion with the Deputy Tax Commissioner of my county.

    Now, there is a specific notation in my individual taxfiile: “Taxpayer has instructed the County that nobody has authority to pay taxes on this property except identified family members, or as specifically authorized in writing by the taxpayer.”

    Of course, if I neglect payment of legally due taxes, the County can issue a tax Fifa and foreclose it on the courthouse steps.)

    An older landowner might purposely not pay property taxes and let the tax sale happen. A planned (staked) heir could bid until they win the auction. The taxes would be paid with the proceeds.

    What’s the point? I’m told a Sheriff’s sale wipes out all leins but existing US tax leins (and/or State tax leins…. and may be used to “settle other issues.”

    I once watched a very young man at a tax sale being “coached” by what appeared to be his grandmother.

    Out of curiosity, I asked a nearby tax offficial what’s going on. He informed me that the young man and his grandmother were members of the Texas Hunt family. “But that property of an estate belonging to the Hunts! Why don’t they just pay that small amount of taxes?”

    “Well,” he said, you’re right but the former owner who was a Hunt, died intestate. The heirs have been squabbling and the older lady there is the “personal representative” to the estate. All the squabbling heirs live out of state…. so after realizing that taxes had not been paid, she requested a Fifa be executed and a Sheriff’s sale initiated. In accordance with her fiduciary duties, she advised all heirs at law of the place, date, and time of the planned tax sale.

    We advertised in the County Organ for the statutory time, and you’re watching the auction now.

    The lady there is teaching the young man how to acquire property by bidding at tax sales. When the young man makes the highest bid, what he remits to us will pay off the taxes due. Any “overage” will go the estate to be distributed to the squabblers and the young man will own the property subject to the statutory “right to redeem.”

    When it’s legal to do so, he can foreclose on that redemption right, and he will own the property free of all familial leins currently accruing to the heirs at law. Every one of those heirs could have been here to bid, but they’re not here.”

  54. e.tolle – well, no, that’s something else, but connected. I was working on something else which db posted a few days ago about security interests, which I believe are created by contract or oper of law (as to these loans, by op of law for non-delivery).
    The UCC is tough and I’m no scholar on it. I think that takes a lifetime. Like I can forget about trying to decipher some of it.

    But I can try to speak to this one. No one can make this warranty. I guess it might mean the warrantor is aware of none of what’s stated (but not that it isn’t, if for no other reason than because these notes are subject to rescission under tila, at least for 3 years.

    4) the instrument is not subject to a defense or claim in recoupment of any party which can be asserted against the warrantor;

    If the loan isn’t three years old, then if the warrantor is the successor in interest, he’s subject to a rescission claim. I’ve never seen anyone try to reconcile tila (etc) with a contention that hdc (an art III proposition) is an available status on these notes. Maybe they can. I just don’t know how.

  55. May a sec’n trust issue a 1099 to a homeowning borrower under any circumstances? A 1099 takes a corresponding loss on someone’s books, does it not? May a trust recognize a loss? Is the IRS giving third parties free tax deductions (but the sky will surely fall if a homeowner’s circumstances improve by someone else’s misdeed or folly or poor business plan)? There’s no enrichment which is unjust as a result of someone else’s dirty hands. imo. The dirty hands started (but by far didn’t stop) when they made predatory loans.

  56. DW: “So what does that make my 1099a issued by a servicer who claims lender status by the very issuance.”

    Well, in your case, who knows. As I recall, so and so was identified as the creditor on your loan, and the so and so wasn’t the party whose name was on the 1099. So something isn’t true. What? Got me.
    I’ve pointed to the fact that debits and credits go together. One party doesn’t get one and another the other. Good accounting trick if they do!
    If ABC Depositor took XYZ’s money for your loan but didn’t deliver, then way I see it, ABC remained the creditor and XYZ had a security interest. To date, those guys are mostly able to implement their own interpretation of things (like laws) because they’re not challenged, mostly because we don’t know generally what all they’re willfully misconstruing to get what they want. Having seen a couple of their white papers, I feel justified in saying they twist laws to suit themselves, eyes wide open, but that was only a couple laws. Right now I’m asking if anyone thinks they can transfer loans (to anyone who had security interests) to change some things mandated by the UCC on account of I do not know and would like to.
    I know I always say the UCC is default law, which it is – when the terms of a contract are unclear or SOMEthing must determine the rights of the parties beyond what’s contemplated in the contracts.

    I can’t think of anything to ‘mess around with’ that makes one party the Creditor yet someone else the proper party to issue a 1099, but, see, that’s just the thing – we here don’t know what they’re trying to tweek to justify this. We all think it’s because they don’t want to disclose the creditor. But by the servicer issuing a 1099, and doing so if you can’t (because one issuing a 1099 takes the corresponding loss) is or should be asking for it with the IRS, isn’t it more likely the lie was that XYZ was the creditor? They’re so brazen, tho, it’s hard to even guess.
    What if ABC actually had to pay XYZ the loss because they’d guarantee’d it and the sale didn’t realize enough to cover their advances? (throwing out stuff) Would that create a right to 1099 the borrower? It’s a stinking maze, but it would far less so if claimants were made to prove they took the notes by transfer and had the right to payment (and the “mers” assignment be damned for the junk it is).

    In case I haven’t ventured this before, the language in the note itself imo prohibits enforcement of the note by those with only security interests because they have no right to payment UNDER the note / no claim against the maker. Humor me and take that for true for a minute. WHO all did the banksters want to stop from enforcement when they put that caveat / definition in the note? A number of possibilities come to mind, esp a guy who gets his hands on the note, including a custodian.

  57. Hi Shadowcat,
    From where you see things what essential elements would you suggest when qualifying an advocate(lawyer) to assist in recovering my “wild deed” that was “never conveyed”?

  58. Deb Wynn- servicers are still trying to convince everyone that they are lenders. Or banks. Or creditors. Or, on my homeowners insurance policy, that they are the mortgagee. I raised hell with my agent, as that would be a lie and i could t accept that. They later changed mortgagee to “first named insured” so i capitulated. But your servicer is not the creditor. The 2009 Fed Reserve amendments to TILA states ” the servicer is never the creditor”. Look it up and send that to them. That oughta do it.

  59. JG, is this what you’re referring to?

    § 3-416. TRANSFER WARRANTIES.

    (a) A person who transfers an instrument for consideration warrants to the transferee and, if the transfer is by indorsement, to any subsequent transferee that:

    (1) the warrantor is a person entitled to enforce the instrument;

    (2) all signatures on the instrument are authentic and authorized;

    (3) the instrument has not been altered;

    (4) the instrument is not subject to a defense or claim in recoupment of any party which can be asserted against the warrantor; and

    (5) the warrantor has no knowledge of any insolvency proceeding commenced with respect to the maker or acceptor or, in the case of an unaccepted draft, the drawer; and

    (6) with respect to a remotely-created consumer item, that the person on whose account the item is drawn authorized the issuance of the item in the amount for which the item is drawn.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-104#Check

  60. db, I’m very thankful you posted that UCC stuff. I’ve never seen the part you posted about security interests (don’t know why, but I haven’t). I knew about security interests, but I was missing critical info.
    Bottom line of what I think I learned: A party who becomes the party entitled to payments on a note who had theretofore only security interests in the note (by agreement or operation of law – the UCC) may only collect from the issuer (here the mtg loan borrower) the amt the party who gave him (by agreement or oper of law) the security interest in the note owes him and is only a hdc to that extent.

    Unlike some people who buy notes at discounts or just buy them and may go after the amt owing on those notes by its maker, these people may only collect what is owed them by someone ELSE.

    So if a trust, just say, had a security interest in the note which it got from “D” and now has acquired the right to payment under the note, the trust may only collect from the home loan borrower what “D” owes him. If this is what’s going on here, we need to know what that amt is
    and that’ll take more than the one set of books the servicers don’t mind anyone seeing.

    But “what’s troubling me is the nature of the game” (yeah, borrowed that from the RStones):

    DOES it make a difference to this scenario if the indentured party actually assigns and transfers the note to the party with the secured interest and he accepts the transfer? Could the indentured party avoid his own liability by such a transfer AND acceptance? (If so, is it because the servicers are in a position to say to their alleged transferees “take this or leave it” because that’s all you’re getting or sue us for non-delivery – or on the security interests – and then the S will really hit the fan and you can try to get your taxes due out of us?)

    Before such a transfer and acceptance, the guy with the security interest’s rights were created by contract or by operation of law (the latter being the one relevant here).
    Does a transfer AND acceptance trump those, such that 1) the indentured party 86’s his liability to the secured party and 2) the formerly secured party, now viewed as a successor in interest on the note, may now go after the note maker for the amt owed under the note (v what the indentured party owed him) and also avoid the fact he’s only a hdc in regard to a diff amt? I can’t think so. Seems to me that would be something the law would view as an unlawful trick to avoid the fact that pursuant to the operation of law, the secured party may only go after the amt owed by the indentured party. (Some) parties may change the terms of their agreements, of course, but I don’t think so once they’ve done things which become matters of law (nor when they’re very makeup is subject to strict law, like trusts).
    I didn’t say that very well, but (some) attorneys should be able to, if they agree with any of this.

    db, also, I have no idea why your loan was sold for the appraised value (cept those guys are crooks). First of all, to my knowledge, there’s no disclosure per se of the appraised value as a dollar amt in the PSA’s. The value of the property is (sort of) expressed as a percentage, loan to value, like 83%. Taking the 83% and the loan amt, one could figure out the alleged value, but it isn’t evident on its face that I’ve ever seen…..?

  61. So what does that make my 1099a issued by a servicer who claims lender status by the very issuance.

  62. This so called victory will have an effect on such a small subset of foreclosures as to be inconsequential to the bigger picture, that of rampant criminality and fraud in ALL OF THE CASES before the courts in MN. It’s a travesty to say the least. More like war crimes.

    For an example, look no further than the above case.

    With respect to First Minnesota, the district court found that it was not a bona fide purchaser because it had “made no inquiry of [Graves] or [his] possession of the premises.” The court therefore held that Graves’s “rights in the Property, whether via Minn.Stat. §§ 325N.10-.18, common law fraud and/or a vendor’s lien” were superior to First Minnesota’s mortgage. The court awarded title to the home to Graves “free of the interest of any Defendant.

    OK, good so far. Justice….how sweet! But wait! What’s this? The sky suddenly darkens in the courtroom as a dark gloomy stench (the smell of filthy lucre) settles over the judge’s bench…..

    With respect to First Minnesota, however, the district court reversed course and held that First Minnesota was a bona fide mortgagee. The court stood by its factual finding that First Minnesota did not make any inquiry of Graves about his possession of the home, but the court then determined, in tension with its first order, that “even if [First Minnesota] had done so [it] would have only been made aware of the limited extent of Graves[‘s] interest in the property.” Accordingly, the court concluded that “[o]n this record, this Court finds nothing that should disqualify First Minnesota from its status as a bona fide mortgagee” and declared that Graves’s “interest in the premises” — whatever that might be — was “subject to that of First Minnesota.”

    So, in the blink of an eye, the court, as has ALWAYS been the case in Minnesota, inexplicably and against the facts ruled for the banksters. Why? Because that’s just how it’s done up here in the land of too far below zero degrees and mosquitoes with measurable wingspans. You Betcha’!

    In Minnesota, the supreme court (I refuse to capitalize them fearing it might denote respect) ruled in Jackson v. MERS, without a doubt the most convoluted piece of garbage ever handed down from a bench, that it’s Okie Dokie for the mortgage to be held Moe, while Larry trades the note like a baseball card, all the while the third player, and they even give the blessing to MERS here, a.k.a. Curly in this example, while holding “legal title” can do the nasty a.k.a. foreclosure. I’m surprised they didn’t create a fourth holder, one whose only job was to bitch-slap the borrower unmercifully while they make a mockery of Carpenter v. Longan. When faced with the undeniable fact that the lowly borrower can’t possible know who’s on first, or more to the point, WHO OWNS THE FUCKING LOAN, due to the real need to known these things like in respect to rescission or any number of other valid claims and defenses with such a convoluted framework, the supreme beings had the nerve to put it this way:

    Specifically, plaintiffs are concerned about the provisions of TILA that allow for loan rescission. As plaintiffs assert, rescission is a remedy for certain disclosure/notice failures. But rescission claims cannot be brought against a servicer. Under TILA, the servicer is obligated to give, to the best of its knowledge, information about who owns the mortgagor’s indebtedness.

    Oh, I see. We’ll just rely on the servicer’s to give us timely information as to the details of our alleged indebtedness, not to mention in a timely manner. Those upstanding pillars of society who never met a consent order they didn’t happily ignore. Without so much as a slap on the wrist, I might add.

    Part of the reason that the supreme court felt no obligation to aid the hapless borrowers is due to the fact that the legislature, seeing the incredible number of foreclosure rising like a tsunami, decided in their collective wisdom to act, and act boldly. How boldly, you might ask? Well, not very, I might reply. In their minds they acted aggressively, forcing these hostile foreclosing entities to…..uhm….they made the creditors, against their will…..er….. screaming and yelling all the way….to…..put a note in every foreclosure notice stating that each and every foreclosure victim was entitled to counseling, where someone who just the day before was selling shoes at Sears will now sit with you and explain to you how to reorder your priorities and create a budget now that you’ve been stripped of everything save for your rusty barbeque grill and a stained nightshirt. Rest easy America! Financial aid is on the way!

    As if the judges haven’t applied a small enough band-aid to the gaping, collective gunshot wounds of the hapless Minnesotan’s who once owned homes in this God-forsaken Land of 10,000 Tundras, they feel they must continue by pouring some vinegar on the wounds:

    In a time of financial crisis, accelerating mortgage foreclosures, and rising frustration with the mortgage banking industry, it is hard not have some nostalgia for earlier times. Looking at the mortgage banking industry today, it is apparent that in many mortgage transactions a George Bailey no longer sits in the corner office of the Building and Loan Association in Bedford Falls. The mortgage banking industry has changed, and with this change certain problems and shortcomings have become evident, especially in the secondary mortgage market. Plaintiffs, in their broad policy argument, ask us to remedy these problems and shortcomings in our decision today. But resolving these problems is beyond the scope of the issue before us and thus beyond our decision-making authority.

    Equating today’s foreclosure crisis and the absolute blight that is destroying the judicial integrity of this once great land to pining for a gentler era…for a corner banker to come save the day is absolutely beyond belief and downright evil given what we all know to be going on here. It’s a crime spree, and nothing short of that. Now, Jesinoski saved a few here and there with TILA. Graves throws a very thin lifeline to another few under MHOEPA. What about the rest of us? The millions who were and still are being callously tossed under the foreclosure bus by these black-robed MBS pensioned criminals who decided it was in their best interests to rule for the banksters regardless of the law?

    I’ve been in these same district courts in Minnesota. I’ve seen different judges on multiple occasions within the first minute of a pro se borrower’s argument interrupt them with, “Did you take out a loan or not!” Now remember, this pro se individual has spent countless thousands of hours learning the pertinent laws and steeling herself for this one big day, her day in court, her day of justice, only to be stripped of any and all rights before even getting started. “No your honor! I didn’t take out a loan with anyone represented here today!” To which comes the stock reply, “And you would know that how?” Spoken with such contempt as to embarrass a Mafioso.

    Minnesota, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, all the children are above average, and all the judge’s pockets are stuffed with more than just lutefisk and hotdish. A pox on them all.

  63. “Starting with the fact that the statute was clear, the court concludes that no court had the authority or jurisdiction to “interpret” the statute.

    Makes you wonder why, then, courts feel they may interpret trust law which says a post-closing transfer is void to say it only really stands for such a transfer being voidable (and then go on to state that the “voidable” interpretation finds the borrower with no standing to argue the alleged assignment). There’s little doubt in my mind that this interpretation against what the law says is a result of a bent, even as I try hard to keep the faith with the judiciary.
    Even if the law could be read that way, that the assgt is merely voidable, given the consequences of such an assignment, surely a reasonable court would see the necessity of ascertaining that the alleged transferee has in fact accepted the assignment, which imo isn’t evidenced by a fact (as / if one exists) that the assignee has given someone else the authority to bring the action (the new poa’s we’re seeing).A party may not do an unlawful thing, so sure as heck neither can anyone else on its behalf. All that assignment does is demonstrate that the assignor, to the extent it has anything to assign, wishes to assign whatever that is to the assignee, and in this case with trusts, it’s looking more and more like it’s trying to turn interest which were heretofore only security interests into right to payment under the note (v right to payment from the indentured party.) This in turn means the assignee (whomever that really is – a group of investors being called a trust mol), if it accepts the transfer, may only collect on the note what is owed him by the indentured party.

    If trust law says these must be true sales and a true sale means there’s payment, transfer, and delivery, and the attempted transfer stands (at least) as evidence there were no prior transfer and delivery, (or leads to prudent questions), then it looks like there are no trusts. Just a bunch of people with security interests who are now the attempted if not factual recipients of rights to payments under the notes themselves. But as to factual, since (if) there’s no trust for lack of true sales, I guess the assgts aren’t valid, anyway.
    These ‘deals’ could work if it weren’t for trust law (as long as the people newly acquiring the right to payment under the notes only go after the note issuers for the amt owed by the indentured party. imo.

    Don’t think we’ll get far, tho, x maybe a random case here and there where they don’t squirm out of f a c t s and or the judiciary decides to let the chips fall where they will when confronted with these arguments.
    lay opinions

  64. Very good UsedKarGuy …we need to have somebody create a national data website to collect and share info on all these lower court judges. These judges need to be exposed, shamed, charged, prosecuted and imprisoned.

    I think back to the first time I went to court in 2010 ..this was just prior to the lid being blown off exposing robo-signers, fabricated faulty fraudulent docs … Well my first impression was how the judge had such an affection and loving expression as he spoke to “Ryan” who was the little snot-nosed young lawyer for the foreclosure mill ..they apparently had a close working relationship …one time the judge verbally spanked “Ryan” after the young spoiled lawyer threw a temper-tantrum because the judge was ordering a hearing to have Wells Fargo employees come in and testify … Ryan acted like the spoiled little brat that had always been allowed to take everbodys home carte blanch …he turned red and shoveled at the judge and was angry and told the judge this is not how they usually have foreclosed in the past … The judge comforted little Ryans frayed nerves saying “Now you know that I have always ruled in your favor .. I just want to have a witness in light of the robo-signer evidence that has come to light recently” as the judge looked like he wanted to run over and sweep Ryan off his feet and kiss him for having upset the young little kid who was always allowed to take peoples homes …the judge was visibly upset that the foreclosure mill lawyer was upset ..like they had some strange, secretive, unethical love relationship with each other. Nothing would surprise me in this.

  65. UKG. …. After a party files a wrongful claim on title …….
    The new buyer (in this case me) and the sellers (in this case us)
    Must provide buyers title insurer proof MERS was paid off.
    Back then I was like huh? Then I looked into the mirror….
    Hired an attorney who advised me that someone owed me a lot of money.

    Don’t want the money. .. I want the deeds!
    Stubborn Ole Gal back then…still am.

  66. I am going to propose that the “lower court judges” have all been bribed right under our noses. How many judges’ mortgages have been reduced or satisfied with only one document? No cash, no “bank” transaction, just a MERS satisfaction filed in the county records? Don’t believe it? Too easy? You’re fuckin’ right it is!
    In the meantime, Bill Butler get’s his ass handed to him for fighting the battle that always needed to be fought.
    How many foreclosures? 8 million? 50 million people displaced and bankrupted by fraud?
    There’s only one way this could have happened in such widespread fashion. Good old fashioned criminal activity now defined as RACKETEERING by statute.
    I suggest that everyone foreclosed on heads on down to their local registrars’ office with a list of judges names and check the property records for all those new mortgages they got. Check the balances or the lack thereof. Let me know what you find.
    You’re welcome.

  67. Bravo. .. One of the best explanations describing the travesty of justice taking place in the courtrooms. The criminal banking enterprise that has agreed to the settlements and Consent Orders with Federal and State gov’t after the Ponzi scheme was exposed, has since been allowed to continue it’s crimes upon the victim homeowners regardless. The judges are all guilty of helping to perpetuate the fraud and scheme by refusing to act with integrity and fairness inside their own courtrooms.

    This begs the question …if the Feds and States all benefited from the huge financial settlements from the criminal banks, then why did they never mandate that the lower court judges must be made to complete training classes which would educate them on the complexities of the Ponzi scheme so they would be deemed “Competent” to understand the fraud involved in the foreclosure travesty. The Feds and States have stood by silently watching the criminal enterprise continue, knowing that the victims were losing their homes due to criminal, fraudulent actions by those in the mortgage industry. The national mortgage settlement was a farce and has accomplished nothing for victims. We still now, 7 or 8 years after the fact, struggle to find little crumbs of evidence in some cases where a judge might question the banks fraud as if it’s a bothersome little detail that pops up once in awhile. What needs to be done, and what needed to be done at the time they took the settlement monies for themselves, is the lower court judges need to be trained and held to a standard of integrity and ethics regarding the mortgage foreclosure Ponzi schemes that are already corroborated as being real and true due to the national settlement…part of that bad settlement should have exposed the crimes, made the scheme public, paid to educate the judges on why the fraud should not prevail, paid for all victim homeowners to receive competent legal representation, etc.

    I enjoy reading these small victories ..but its too little, too late for the millions of families who lost. Just look at what NG wrote in the piece above ..that since Jesinoski ..there has been almost nothing in the courts to show that the lower judges “get it” and can be trusted. The lower court judges are defiant and work to ensure that the victims do not prevail. They know that most Pro se. Individuals will fail to navigate their way thru the Appeals process ..its nearly impossible for most non-lawyers to prepare a proper Appeal. The lower court judges also are mindful to work extra hard at desroying your ability to Appeal by the improper way they conduct their hearings, they intentionally deny you the opportunity to create a good record for Appeal, due to the fact most Pro se victims are ignorant about procedural law inside a courtroom. They come in thinking they will get their chance, but instead get run over by the judge , who deliberately destroys their chance of Appeal.

    The lower court judges are still the biggest problem we face after 8 yrs of this travesty.

    The legal profession still lacks competent attorneys to defend victims.

    Although we see some light in a few of these cases , the vast majority of the judicial system is still stacked against homeowners, and until we see real proof of changes and mass decisions regarding these frauds, the fight is still a long way from being over ..the judges are jus like those Japanese soldiers hiding on the islands in the Pacific during WWII , they refuse to accept and acknowledge the truth, they will fight to the hitter end to keep ruling against homeowners no matter what evidence keeps being presented to them. The lower judges view homeowners as the enemy , the Fed and State govt officials obviously condone it too.

    We are fighting both a physical war, and a spiritual one in this fight of good verses evil. There are bad individuals involved in this, the powers that be, many of them condone this injustice against common middle class American families … So we need to just keep fighting hard and really find a great way to put what we know into words, create the motions, answers, complaints templates that can help others ..we need to flood the nation’s courts with these same arguments in unison. We need people to start creating the templates that can be shared so that we all make the correct valid arguments to force this to a head. The legal community has really failed the homeowners in this fight. With the exception of NG, who has done a terrific amount of work on behalf of American families who cannot find justice. Thank you Neil Garfield.

  68. Good read, im encouraged.

  69. Underscores “nemo dat….” One cannot give what one does not have. Very simple. Two words.

  70. No Delivery of the Deeds!

  71. Oops..an interest that could be conveyed.
    Basically if you don’t have it…its not yours to grant or convey.

  72. “Where the grantor possess NO interest that could not be conveyed”

    Good Stuff!

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: