LOAN ORIGINATORS ARE NOT LENDERS

WE HAVE REVAMPED OUR SERVICE OFFERINGS TO MEET THE REQUESTS OF LAWYERS AND HOMEOWNERS. This is not an offer for legal representation. In order to make it easier to serve you and get better results please take a moment to fill out our FREE registration form https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1453992450583 
Our services consist mainly of the following:
  1. 30 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  2. 60 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  3. Case review and analysis
  4. Rescission review and drafting of documents for notice and recording
  5. COMBO Title and Securitization Review
  6. Expert witness declarations and testimony
  7. Consultant to attorneys representing homeowners
  8. Books and Manuals authored by Neil Garfield are also available, plus video seminars on DVD.
For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. You also may fill out our Registration form which, upon submission, will automatically be sent to us. That form can be found at https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1452614114632. By filling out this form you will be allowing us to see your current status. If you call or email us at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com your question or request for service can then be answered more easily.
================================

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

—————-

see Hancock Ins v JPMorgan Chase et al

The question hanging in the air because nobody wants to answer it is that if a party is merely an originator and NOT a lender or creditor, then is there any theory under which a loan contract could be considered consummated? Anyone who has been reading my blog over the years knows I think the answer is no — especially because that practice is called a table funded loan and is considered PREDATORY PER SE according to REG Z under the Truth in Lending Act.

The second question would be whether there is any debt owed to a party on a note and mortgage arising out of a “closing” where there was no loan between the originator and the “borrower?” Again I answer no from simple contract theory. The fact that I give you $5 does not mean you owe my friend Joe $5 unless I transfer the debt.

The banks have managed to confuse courts for 10 years but their “15 minutes” appears to be up. They have reversed it.

Joe gets you to sign a note and mortgage to his benefit and he lends no money. Then Mary asks me for $5 so she can lend it to you. We all hire a closing agent. Mary sends my $5 to the closing agent and the closing agent procures your signature on the note and mortgage that was prepared by Mary.

The note and mortgage are payable to Joe. So now, according to the paperwork, you owe Joe $5. My $5 is given to you by the closing agent, who assumes the $5 came from Joe. So you and I have a debtor-creditor relationship that neither of us knows about. You and Joe have a false relationship of “maker” and “payee” on the note that never should have been released from “closing” had the real facts been revealed by disclosures required by the Truth in Lending Act.

That lack of knowledge is at the center of all the controversies in cases where securitization is asserted. They securitized the paper but not the debt.

According to substantive law, you owe either Mary or me — not under the UCC or contract law but under rules of equity. It is a claim that is unsecured. If someone actually buys the note then you are screwed because if they paid for the note in good faith and without knowledge of your defenses, they can enforce it. Mary gets an assignment or fabricates an assignment from Joe and pays him a fee for his “troubles.”

Notice that my $5 is never mentioned in the paperwork with anyone. And my $5 is the only real money in the “game.” If later I figure out where my money went, then I can sue you under equity (unjust enrichment, etc) and win. If someone pays for the paper they can also win. You are left with an action for damages against Joe and maybe Mary. But they are most likely long gone. So you became indebted for $10 even though you only borrowed $5. Add the cost of litigation and interest and your loan probably goes from $5 to $5,000, with little hope of recovery from anyone — unless a judge believes your defenses and insists on proof of the underlying transactions, in which case Joe and Mary will get free room and board from the state (Prison).

Back to the paperwork. Mary’s Uncle creates a company and Mary transfers the loan papers to her uncle’s company. Note that the paperwork has been transferred, not the underlying debt. The paperwork is like a quitclaim deed from someone with no interest in the land. Other than me, nobody has paid any money for the origination or acquisition of the loan. But I have no paperwork protecting my interest even though Mary promised she would get it to me.

I own the debt. But since I don’t know you exist, I never claim any money from you. Instead Mary’s Uncle hires a bank to act like the servicer for the company formed by Mary’s Uncle. The servicer brings suit in the name of the company and they sue you for the $ plus fees, interest and litigation expenses.

If you have guessed that the courts have been rubber stamping a criminal conspiracy, I would agree.

FROM WILLIAM PAATALO

DEFINITION of ‘ThirdParty Mortgage Originator‘ 1. A person or company involved in the process of marketing mortgages and gathering borrower information for a mortgage application. This information is then transferred or sold to the actual mortgage lender.
And here’s Fannie Mae’s Definition:

Fannie Mae classifies mortgages into three different origination types:

  • retail,
  • correspondent, or
  • broker.

Refer to the Glossary for the definition of each origination type.

A third-party origination is any mortgage that is completely or partially originated, processed, underwritten, packaged, funded, or closed by a third-party originator, that is, an entity other than the lender that sells the mortgage to Fannie Mae, such as a mortgage broker or correspondent. Fannie Mae does not consider a mortgage that is originated and/or funded by a lender’s parent, affiliate, or subsidiary to be a third-party origination unless the parent, affiliate, or subsidiary uses the services of a mortgage broker or loan correspondent to perform some or all of the loan origination functions.

​From the Table of Contents of the attached Hancock Ins. v. JPMC, et al.:​

 

THE THIRD PARTY ORIGINATORS OF THE MORTGAGE LOANS UNDERLYING THE CERTIFICATES ABANDONED THEIR UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES AND APPRAISAL STANDARDS …………………………………………………………………………….88
1. BNC…………………………………………………………………………………………….90
2. CIT Group…………………………………………………………………………………….91
3. Countrywide………………………………………………………………………………….93
4. FNBN…………………………………………………………………………………………..95
5. Fremont………………………………………………………………………………………..96
6. GreenPoint……………………………………………………………………………………99
7. Impac Funding…………………………………………………………………………….102
8. IndyMac……………………………………………………………………………………..103
9. MortgageIT…………………………………………………………………………………107
10. New Century……………………………………………………………………………….108
11. People’s Choice…………………………………………………………………………..112
12. PHH……………………………………………………………………………………………113
13. Sebring……………………………………………………………………………………….114
14. Wells Fargo…………………………………………………………………………………114

12 Responses

  1. Does anyone know how I can find out what Wells Fargo location a particular employee works out of. They signed Foreclosure documents as Vice President of Loan Documentation, but the document was notarized in South Carolina. The name is Asahia Brooks. Any help would be appreciated. James Smith, 443-677-2799, jsmith5915@msn.com.

  2. The lender moved to dismiss the homeowner’s TILA claims, and the court ruled in favor of Paatalo, declining to dismiss. The court followed Jesinoski, which states unequivocally that under TILA a valid “rescission is effected when the borrower notifies the creditor of his intention to rescind,” not at some later point when the lender or a court recognizes or verifies the rescission. It further held that a borrower need not also file suit within TILA’s three-year statute of limitations to enforce such a valid rescission—the notice itself is sufficient to preserve the right.

  3. I had 3, 11 and now hells fargo-  they won!  talked to a federal attorney today – she said I have lost – look for housing I cannot take my case to federal court – she said I wasted my time sending the rescission and it doesn’t matter – sooo I cried almost all ay Ive been fighting these scumbags since 2009 – now I lose my husband had a credit score of 825, was dxed with a very rare terminal appendix cancer – they said stop paying till mod goes through, which was NEVER going through due to investor restriction only disclosed in foreclosure mediation  – but now a widow n 4 kids will be homeless because I don’t ave the proper help!                                     Angel Hugs n Blessings!                                    Beth Profeta    

    Please visit this daughter’s sacred promise to her mother to never give up ~ to never let people forget that we still wait for JUSTICE !   http://marybadaracco.com and www.forevermissed.com/bob-profeta/#lifestory &  www.change.org/p/wells-fargo-asc-refuse-2-modify-widow-with-4-kids-fraudulent-criminals

  4. Retired NY Atty discusses:
    How Wall Street Turned “The Note” Into “God” and Convinced Courts to Join Their “Church”
    Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 6:45 PM EST
    (on that other bird-brained talk show)

  5. YVANOVA v. NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION
    Case: S218973, Supreme Court of California

    Date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2016-02-17
    Event Description: Notice of forthcoming opinion posted

    Notes: To be filed Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:00 a.m

  6. RESPECTFULLY, NGarfield erred.

    EVERYONE must immediately cease the use of the word “loan,” because the research indicates that there was no such MEETING OF THE MINDS where a SECURITIZATION of the transaction is involved — which is an absolute and irrefutable fact.

    The title should state as follows:

    [SECURITIZATION] ORIGINATORS ARE NOT LENDERS

    Having said that, I am continuing the research for a legal authority on same.

    Please help & contribute with the legal citation(s).

  7. @ Javagold

    This will not be news to you. Wells Fargo’s own documentation concedes there is no lender in a SECURITIZED CONDUIT transaction, to wit:

    The thing most borrowers fail to realize about conduit loans is that once a loan has been securitized, they are not working with a “lender” anymore. The loans are pooled into a securitization called a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC). The REMIC is a trust and it has no lenders, only fiduciaries of the “certificate holders.”

    https://www08.wellsfargomedia.com/assets/pdf/commercial/financing/real-estate/Conduit_Loan_Servicing.pdf

  8. You cannot after this many years assume the Judges have lack of knowledge anymore.

    They are in on these crimes.

    >

  9. The banks are praying for a collapse to restart their scheme and eliminate their debts. It’s worked for 103 years now… but the end is in sight.

  10. Unfortunately, there is no lender after all.

  11. What you mean Wells Fargo isn’t my lender , even though they lent me no money at the closing. Even though I put down $100,000 hard cash. Even though they changed the account number 2 years later. Even though they changed the Wells Fargo NA name on the mortgage document. Even though Freddie Mac now says they owned the loan from day 1. Although I never heard Freddie Mac name before. Even though they now admit they are debt collectors. Even though they foreclosed as Servicer. Even though They sent me a bogus1099-A. Even though I argued in front of 4 judges that Wells Fargo would be getting a FREE house. You mean Wells Fargo wasn’t my lender !!!!!!

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: