FORENSIC ANALYSTS AND CPA’S
Our services consist mainly of the following:
30 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
60 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
Case review and analysis
Rescission review and drafting of documents for notice and recording
COMBO Title and Securitization Review
Expert witness declarations and testimony
Consultant to attorneys representing homeowners
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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
- REMIC Trust and Beneficiaries (investors)
- Master Servicer and Trust
- Master Servicer and subservicers
- “Borrowers” and payee on the note, and its legal successors — if there was consummation of the original loan. If not then between homeowners and investors whose money was used to fund the appearance of a loan transaction
The investors might be, as a group, called creditors — but the actual identification of those “creditors” might be incapable of determination because of the commingling of funds of investors from a multitude of Trusts and the failure to provide a clear money trail that shows the presence of one or more creditors in a specified “loan” transaction. We already know that the Trusts are never asserted to own the debt. They are alleged to be holders and not holders in due course. The trusts are “place-holders”. One thing appears certain — nobody is suggesting that the borrowers and the investors have any contractual relationship. I would suggest the homeowners and investors are the only parties who have a real relationship and that all others asserted by the banks are an illusion. This relationship between the investors and the “borrowers” is not in contract, but rather in equity.
Then the forensic analyst comes and says that there are defects, forgeries etc — an opinion upon which the CPA could rely, in saying that auditing rules, in the face of such conclusions require examinations of the actual transactions, including proof of payment. Without that, the CPA would testify, the “business records” may not be business records at all (but rather a device to create the appearance of business records, and therefore overcome the hearsay objection). The dichotomy being that the subservicer is presenting “business records” of its own and prior companies but not the business records of the foreclosing party (i.e., usually the Trust). The presence of an actual default in the accounts of the investors is debatable at best.
If you talk to a CPA with an open mind, even if he/she doesn’t want to become an expert witness, they can explain it. The question is how do we know whether this loan is an asset of any person? And how can we know who is authorized to represent the owner of the asset without knowing the owner?
The CPA can also clear up another shroud. Can the records of a servicer (assuming it was authorized) actually be the entire records of the real creditor, who is another party?
The biggest obstacle to this is the mindset of borrowers and their attorneys. They can’t quite wrap their minds around the idea that there was no consummation, there was no loan (at least with the party who appears on the note). But the biggest hurdle in understanding all this is the totally unique concept that the homeowner received money and that from the start there was no party answering to the description of a creditor — unless we accept the premise that we don’t need to know that.
So the evidence question is how can we ever be sure that the records of a subservicer are representative of realities at the level of the Master Servicer, the higher level of the alleged Trust, or the highest level of the investors/ beneficiaries? Without business records of the Trust or the trust beneficiaries we only have partial picture from a subservicer who generally has no direct knowledge or records about transactions with either the investors or the homeowners.
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: (2) the "holder" (Trust) who is suppoed to ownw the loan but doesn'tThere are the holder who seeks foreclosure is whether n the alelged borrower and the alleged servicer are sufficientervicerbeiyt eh , business records, CPA, ecordsYou actually have three entities involed: (1) the real "creditor" that might not exist at all under legal definitions, foreclosure defense, forensic analyst, hearsay, money chain, owers"payee and its sucessors --- if there was consumamtion n of the original loanl loanoan. legalIs appears certainnobody is suggesting that the investors and the borrowersthat that the at they are t, paper chain, Servicer and subservicerservicer, there can be little question as to then betwappearnce ppear.holderscontractual arearerealaultisi |