Filed under: foreclosure Tagged: | Bank of America, Chase, disclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, fraud, INDYMAC, ne of them were lenders. None were creditors., OneWest, RED OAK MERGER CORP, securitization, WAMU
Posted on June 1, 2016 by Neil Garfield
When BOA says it is a “Successor by merger” to Countrywide, it is no more true than Chase’s claims that it is the successor by merger to WAMU and no different than the false claims of OneWest as to IndyMac. In each instance there was a merger but in none of them were loans acquired because they had already been sold.
If you look at the actual merger disclosures, it is highly doubtful and even inconsistent with other disclosures that Bank of America Corp or Bank of America N.A. actually owns any loans originated by Countrywide. In fact, as you drill deeper you will be drawn to my conclusion —— that Countrywide was a conduit and not a lender, who operated through other thinly capitalized “originators” none of whom were actually making loans.
None of them were lenders. None were creditors. The money for the alleged loans came from a dynamic dark pool consisting solely of money from investors — by-passing the so called “REMIC” Trust that claims ownership even though it was never active as a business entity or as a pass-through entity. The Trust never received the proceeds of sale of securities the Trust issued. Nobody complained because it was really not the Trust that was the active entity, it was the investment bank that had created the illusion of mortgage backed securities that were not backed by mortgages and not securities under deregulation back in 1998-1999. Investors who failed to peek under the hood jumped at high ratings and insured investments. But other fund managers who did peek under the hood, discovered at best a very high risk venture and at worst, a criminal conspiracy. These conduits were all getting signatures that were then parlayed into the illusion of assets that were sold into the secondary mortgage market and then subjected to false claims of securitization.
This situation is like Chase claims that WAMU originated mortgages. The only difference is that WAMU was actually capitalized to start off the origination of loans with its own funds and did not start acting as a mere conduit until around 2001, based upon all appearances. WAMU eventually originated almost $1 Trillion in loans despite the fact that it lacked the resources to make those loans. Likewise Countrywide, on a much larger scale was only a conduit rather than a lender for the many trillions of dollars that were originated using the Countrywide “platform.”
In both cases the loans, by all accounts, were presold or contemporaneously sold into the secondary market the moment the “borrower” signed papers that led to doom. In the case of Countrywide, MERS was used extensively, to hide the fact that there were no transactions in which anyone actually bought the loans because the loans were already paid for with investor funds. That’s why you get answers from the “corporate representative” in court saying “Fannie Mae [or Freddie Mac] was the investor “from the start.” That has been accepted in courts across the land despite the fact that the GSE’s were never direct lenders. Their only role at the origination was as guarantor, if that.
So the upshot of all this is that the mega banks are playing musical chairs as servicers and trustees, to be sure, but also playing games with corporate entities such that they shield themselves from violations of Federal and state lending laws. BOA did not merge with Countrywide or BAC (which is a mere name change of Countrywide). CW merged with Red Oak merger Corp. and BOA claims that Red Oak was a wholly owned subsidiary. There is nothing nefarious about forming a subsidiary to facilitate an acquisition. But what is wrong is that when BOA says it is a “Successor by merger” to Countrywide, it is no more true than Chase’s claims that it is the successor by merger to WAMU and no different than the false claims of OneWest as to IndyMac. In each instance there MAY have been a “merger” but in none of them were loans acquired because they had already been sold.
There were no assignments and there was no payment for the loans. The transaction that they have successfully argued in court should be legally presumed to exist, does not in fact exist. The presumption is in direct contradiction to the factual truth.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule, leave message or make payments.