VOID ASSIGNMENTS

You cannot ratify an event that never occurred. The paper assignment cannot be ratified if there was no actual event. The event is the purchase of a loan or many loans. The proof is not the assignment but the payment for the assignment. The Courts are wrong when they say the assignment could be theoretically ratified and then concluding that therefore the assignment is voidable not void. That is circular logic. They are looking at the assignment and they are concluding that there must have been a transaction if there was an assignment. The proper way to look at it is if there a transaction then the assignment could be valid could be ratified. If there is no transaction, there is nothing to ratify and therefore the assignment is void, not voidable.

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

—————-
There is an erroneous presumption behind the recent cases in which judges determined that the assignment was voidable not void. Their assumption is that the trust bought the loan. This is not true. Both sides of the foreclosure cases have skated around this issue.
If the REMIC Trust did in fact issue payment for the acquisition of loans then these judges are probably right. But in nearly ten years of this work I can find no evidence nor even any assertion that the Trust ever issued payment for anything — ever. This is corroborated by the fact that the lawyers for the trust scrupulously avoid the one assertion that would end all of the cases if it was true: that the trusts are holders in due course.
A holder in due course is a party who purchased the loan in good faith and without knowledge of the borrower’s defenses. Since the Trust is far removed from the alleged “loan” closing it would be a futile effort to say that the trust was not operating in good faith or had knowledge of the borrower’s defenses. When they purchase the paper, even if it is fatally defective, they become holders in due course free from the defenses of the borrower. So why don’t they assert that position? Obviously this was not an oversight.
The only possible reason that does not strain credulity is that they didn’t pay for the loan. If they did not pay for the loan then it is inescapable that there was no transaction in the real world in which the Trust was a buyer of loans that included whatever loan your are litigating. The alleged assignment is not the transaction any more than a bill of sale is the transaction for the purchase of a car. There must be payment and delivery of cash for the car. If that didn’t occur, there is no amount of ratification in which a nonexistent transaction suddenly is born. Or to make the analogy even closer, imagine that scenario where the buyer steals the car instead of paying for it and then asserts a claim under the warranty in the Purchase Agreement.
Hence the argument used by judges to justify their bias for the banks is devoid of any factual or logical basis and devoid of legal support as well. If the transaction did occur then it could conceivably be ratified — although not without dire consequences for the trust and the investors who would lose their tax status for a pass through entity. But if the transaction did not occur then what effect could “ratification” have on something that still does not exist?
Thus the question is simply “was there ever a transaction between the REMIC Trust and the Seller of loans whereby the Trust paid for the loans the seller executed an assignment.” If yes, the judges are right. If no, the Judges are wrong.
BACKGROUND: Industry practice was to create a document that qualified under the laws of the State of New York as a common law Trust. This document is not registered with any secretary of state or any other agency keeping track of the creation of common law trusts. Like all trusts, this trust was a nullity unless and until assets were transferred into the Trust (the “res”). If there re no assets in the trust then there is nothing for a Trustee to do. Industry practice was to create the illusion of a trust on paper and then never use it. The only “exception” was the bank causing the “Trust” to issue more paper that also was unregistered and called “mortgage backed securities.” The Trust never sold those securities to anyone. The “sale” was performed by the investment bank underwriter. The Trust never received any money, never had any need for a bank account and the “trustee” and noting to do except sit there and look pretty and official. The Trust was never administered in any way. The Trustee merely got paid for acting as though the Trust was real.
Hence, without assets, the Trust could not possibly have purchased any loan. And THAT is why the assignment is void — i.e., it is the memorialization of a transaction that never occurred and never will occur. It can’t occur unless the Trust had or has money to pay for the loans.
And finally, we come to the obvious questions about transfers of paper regarding the “loan.” None of them were sales as there were no purchases. Nobody paid anyone. And that includes the so-called lender who may have endorsed a note or even executed an assignment, but never received any payment in exchange for their sale of the alleged loan through a robo-signed endorsement or assignment. Why? Because the lender was not real either. The funds used for the loan came out of a commingled dark pool of investor money that paid no attention to the individual trusts in which the investors thought they were investing.  So the investors were duped into letting the investment bank fund all sorts of alleged loans without the investors getting any protection from an executed note in their favor or an executed mortgage naming them as mortgagee. Once you look at the money trail it is easy to see why the banks are loathe to let anyone even peek at the money trail — it just doesn’t add up.
Ratification becomes a non issue because there was no “act” to ratify. Bank attorneys have thus far succeeded in confusing the bench between ratification of a document as though it was an “act.” Somewhere along the line the Courts are going to be required to deal with the facts that are readily apparent in the public domain. BOTH the investors AND the alleged borrowers are complaining about the same thing and BOTH are alleging, in essence unconscionability. Hence the only two groups that are real parties in interest are in agreement — this is not the deal we thought it was. And as James “Randy” Ackley points out the starting point is the doctrines dealing with adhesion contracts. They were both screwed simply through bank control over appraisals that were not only artificially high; and as we have discussed multiple times on this blog, those appraisals were coerced — just as 8,000 appraisers said in a petition to congress in 2005.
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 

50 Responses

  1. johngault: You asked if the citing I gave was from SEC law or the PSA – it’s straight from the PSA instructing all of the requirements of the loans they accept. You must get the court to recognize this important doc under judicial notice. Once you do that – it becomes accepted as gospel and cannot be argued.

  2. Kalifornia, I have to look. Sorry about that. Sometimes I copy something from a case and forget to list the case in my “take out” doc.

  3. Johngault, Per the PSA; “In the Agreement, the depositor will represent and warrant to the trustee regarding the Private Mortgage-Backed Securities: (1) that the information contained in the Mortgage Certificate Schedule is true and correct in all material respects; (2) that, immediately prior to the conveyance of the Private Mortgage-Backed Securities, the depositor had good title thereto, and was the sole owner thereof, (subject to any Retained Interests);” (section: “Assignment of Primary Assets of the PSA)

    You will get the same ‘homeowner not a party to the PSA’ response. However don’t challenge the PSA. You say that ‘because they didn’t adhere to the rules of the PSA ON THEIR SIDE, the transfer could not happen.’

  4. @ johngault

    Is there a citation or a link to the previous post: “This is from a case which is not about who funded the loan” ?

  5. “Under Regulation Z, which specifies a lender’s disclosure
    obligations, “consummation” of the loan occurs when the borrower
    is “contractually obligated.” 12 C.F.R. § 226.2(a)(13). The point
    at which a “contractual obligation . . . is created” is a matter
    of state law. 12 C.F.R. pt. 226, Supp. 1 (Official Staff
    Interpretation), cmt. 2(a)(13). Under California law, a contract
    is formed when there are (1) parties capable of contracting, (2)
    mutual consent, (3) a lawful object, and (4) sufficient cause or
    consideration. Cal. Civ. Code § 1550. The parties agree that the
    third factor is not at issue. As to the other elements, they
    disagree as to the legal effect of the undisputed facts.”

    This is from a case which is not about who funded the loan”. I’m just mentioning it for its articulation of tila’s version of “consumation”, but I’m not sure myself if it answers anything if the lender named on the note didn’t fund the loan (inclulding with money that was his because he had himself borrowed it). But maybe. I think it’s true that parties to a contract must be “mutally consenting” to the same thing (or there’s no mutual consent imo), and here I mean that the borrower is consenting to a loan by the named note payee and the named note payee is consenting to loan the borrower ITS moolah. .

  6. If they repurchase shouldn’t they have to show chain of title? If the originating bank becomes the servicer? The note means nothing someone needs to tell the judges please

  7. Titletracs: “A trust cannot accept loans from anyone other than the DEPOSITOR for that Trust.”

    Is this trust law or part of the PSA? Anyone?

  8. From the article re: the SEC’s slap on the hands for falsely defaulting loans and then re-selling them:

    “a Ginnie Mae rule that gave issuers the option to repurchase loans that were delinquent by three or more months, the SEC said.”

    Arg. This is that rule that says that after making three payments (.v F & F which is 4 payments), the issuer may repurchase the loans in order to end their guarantee (that or they just must – I forget as to GNMA, but at any rate, they don’t get to pretend their in default, pull them and resell them – only possible when assigments aren’t recorded*,). On fha and va loans, it’s the issuer who has to repurchase loans. Ever seen an issuer do this? Yeah, me neither.
    The ISSUER must repurchase the loan and only then may it avail itself of fha insurance and the va guarantee. Yeah, right.

    *that makes me think of the different loan numbers we see. It could be that when servicing changes, the new servicer wants its own number, but since these loans appear to be primarily id’d by loan number, if you wan to resell the sucker, just pull it, and give it a new loan number.
    I’m not kidding when I say I have a loan schedule for a trust which
    purports to identify the loan by the date or origination and the loan amt – that’s it!!

  9. Who knew? Paper bifurcation for Chapter 13

    IN RE BRAMMER (D.C. 12-16-2009)
    431 B.R. 522
    In re WILLIAM HAYMORE BRAMMER, JR., and HEILI KIM, (Chapter 13) Debtors.
    Case No. 09-00608.
    United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Columbia.
    December 16, 2009.

    ” In her motion, the trustee argues that because the debtors’ secured debts exceed $1,010,650, they are ineligible under § 109(e) to file for relief under chapter 13 and must instead convert to chapter 11. To arrive at this result, however, the trustee must first get past § 506(a), which mandates that the court bifurcate lien claims into secured and unsecured claims to the extent the amount of the claim exceeds the value of the collateral in determining the amount of allowed secured claims in a case. If § 506(a) applies, the debtors have secured claims totaling $752,500 (the scheduled value of the debtor’s house and car) and unsecured claims of $295,330.45, qualifying them under § 109(e) for relief under chapter 13.

    In her motion, the trustee argues that § 1322(b)(2) prevents the debtors from using § 506(a) to bifurcate Aurora Loan Services’ claim secured by their home for purposes of determining eligibility under § 109(e). Section 1322(b)(2), in part, limits the ability of a debtor to modify through a chapter 13 plan the rights of a holder of a claim that is secured only by the debtor’s principal residence. In operation, it stops a debtor from bifurcating a claim on their home and stripping off the unsecured portion of the claim for different treatment under the plan. Because, however, the antimodification clause of § 1322(b)(2) does not extend to determining eligibility for purposes of § 109(e), the trustee’s argument is without merit.”

  10. If a bankster falsely defaults a loan, or even pulls a loan actually in default from an alleged trust, and then resells it as a performing loan and makes the payments itself, it collects its advances first – with interest, but……. FC is the only way to get their advances back (unless they duped other eejits into buying the securitized advances. Even if not, there’s a reason ALS, for instance, had 2 billion in advances which went to Nationstar after als folded (and imo is now known as Nationstar). And it wasn’t because they were nice guys.
    ps – there’s a difference between a volunteer payment and one made
    pursuant to a surety agreement. One, way I understand it, allows for reimbursement and one doesn’t (the surety does). FNMA, for instance, made a guarantee and wasn’t a surety imo.

  11. listen, everybody, the issue is forgery. Forged notes, forged affidavits, forged allonges, forged trailing assignments and responsive assignments re-created to represent a transaction that never happened.

  12. A case to watch in Ma.
    US Bank NA vs. Wendy Bolling

  13. nice securitization fraud lawsuit template available at

    rogerrinaldi.wordpress.

    Rinaldi v. Wells in it’s entirety.

    Pick, pull, and plagiarize at will.

  14. Why do the courts accept an undated, un notarized, stamped not even a real signature on the note, but do not care if an assignment is there or not? I am so confused. To to out off how many of you received blank documents on purpose at closing vs signed documents to have? NEVER AGAIN WILL THAT HAPPEN.

  15. Lets not forget. ..Reliance on those Representations.

  16. ???????

  17. Lis Pendons by a party without standing is also Slander..
    Especially if they don’t own the note and there was no assignment of mortgage .

  18. Unlegal, ‘slander’ might be the right choice because a bogus assgt is recorded for reliance thereon and i think that’s what causes it to be slanderous. .

  19. I’d like to repeat fwiw that imo since an unlawful act may not be ratified (look into it), a late assignment isn’t merely voidable at anyone’s option.
    “A principal cannot ratify a contract made by an agent if at the time it was made the principal had no power to make it himself.” It may not be quite that simple (or it might be), but when the dust settles, it should be the conclusion. But no one will ever get that conclusion if the argument isn’t made (after more research on ratification). A trust would ratify the assignment by its acceptance of the assignment and it can’t by law. The law doesn’t just say that the acceptance changes the trust’s tax status. It says the assignment is void, and to me, that’s the difference. Acceptance isn’t merely a consequence which changes the tax status or formation of the trust entity, it’s an impossibility – by law. I don’t see how courts can rule there’s anything discretionary about it such that the assignment is merely voidable v void. .

  20. @John,
    IMO, you’re correct, I agree it would seem to create a cloud to anybody looking at the records/filings. So, would seem something would need be done to clear it all up. Maybe ‘slander’ means something other than what we think.

  21. I’d bet the scam with falsely defaulting loans wasn’t only for the purpose of reselling the loans as postured in the article. If I refinance with a cash-out loan, they can just falsely default my old loan in the existing trust, take that note, expend cash only in the amt of my cash out, repackage (abbreviated), and sell that loan elsewhere. When the dust settles, they would’ve gotten the face amt of the new loan out of a new dupe but only spent capital to the amt of the cash out to me. Crook had to part with (fund) my 30k cash out, but sold my new note for 300k. That’s a heck of a return. I would never have thought of then doing this on my own. It’s only because that woman was so intent on the matter here a couple years ago, but i know sure believe it. I don’t think criminals could control themselves if it’s possible to do these thing as I think it is. That’s a hell of a return.

  22. Unlegal: “My lawyer tells me a void Assignment _does not_ slander title. The Assignment is VOID, not voidable. It Assigned nothing, defaults back to wherever it came.”

    Imo, that’s an opinion and not necessarily factual. Even if a bogus assignment is void, documents are record to give notice, and even when “void”, such instruments create a cloud on the title.. Any bankster filing a bogus assignment does so with intent of reliance thereon. That’s nowhere near harmless.

  23. How did WAMU/FDIC/Chase assign for (consideration) my mortgage 7 years after the fact to the trustee and 4 years after WAMU’s closure? The loan had already been sold to the trust.. Shouldn’t the depositor have done this in 2005?

  24. again we must get courts to order a full discovery of all partys to pas,trust, accounting’s. books records. and by the way. they are not protected under bank secrets laws… only a fdic insured bank is covered by that law. a trust is not a bank or covered by fdic, nor is the depositor, issuer, or even the originators. or servicers.

    AND THE PSA IS A PUBLIC DOC. TO ALL TO SEE. THEY CANY SAY, AM NOT A PARTY TO THE PSA IF MY LOAN WAS PUT INTO THE PSA. OR A SIGNATURE PARTY TO PSA, NO PARTY IS SHOW TO SIGN THE PSA, MAKING NO PARTY TO PSA. IF THEY EVEN WENT THROUGH WHAT THEY RECORDED TO DO .
    AS THE SEC SAID, JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS RECORDED WITH THE SEC, DOES NOT MEAN THEY
    BANKS,TRUST, DID WHAT THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO. IT JUST MEANS THEY RECORDED SOMETHING. GET IT.. THIS IS WHY ALL THE SETTLEMENTS ARE BEING DONE, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT DO WHAT THE PSA, SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO.
    SO AGAIN THIS IS WERE, A FULL ACCOUNTING OF THE ORIGINATOR, SELLER OF CERTIFICATES, DEPOSITOR, TRUSTS, NEED A COMPLETE AUDIT. BY A INDPENDENT AUDITOR. AND THIS NEED TO BE ORDER FROM COURT. AS THE ONLY WAY TO SEE IF THE LOAN WAS , ASSIGNED, BOUGHT, FOR VALUE, ETC,ETC, FROM START TO FINNISH.

  25. That’s why they never produce discovery

  26. Assignments not recorded do not matter to the judges. They should know that most mortgage were securitized and that if a bank claims they own the note and they originated the mortgage they should show how they received it back? Where is the sale recorded? On the banks books? Assignment recorded. Why is discovery not demanded by judges to prove ownership. How can they knowingly accept robo signed or photo shopped notes as real? And not even care that there is no assignment recorded. Again the banks commit fraud on us fraud on the courts because they can. HOW DO WE THE PEOPLE CHANGE THE COURTS MIND SET??????

  27. Thank you fit for your reply but I have been fighting for 7 years and learned alot but always seems every thing I have learned had no value in court in front of the judge 😞. We all have learned so much. That the banks lie and commit fraud because…..wait for it…… Because they CAN. which means they can pull the wool over any judges eyes in regards to the note. We found out that during the excitement of closing most people were handed blank paper work in a folder. Only the mortgage is notarized and recorded? Why Is the note not notorized and recorded in Florida? When the judges put more so I should say all the weight on the note? Are they recorded in other states? What about the modifications? Obama obviously didn’t do his homework and neither did our Congress this week we found out fnm and fdmc do not participate in the hamp program? WHAT? Millions of people applied for a hamp loan , over and over just to have their faxes or mail lost and then getting multiple denials meanwhile each bank received money for each application. Yet this week we find out no one with fnm or fdmc mortgages would never have been approved? Isn’t that fraud not just on us but on the government? Just saying where is the justice for the people. Where is the push to end foreclosures? Seems like there is just too much money in them and we have to suffer for years. I don’t see it.

  28. Please keep us posted.

  29. Rhody,

    Start getting ‘assignments’ examined by a forensic examiner.
    Backdated fraud, forgery and notary forgery.

    We had sent the defective assignment to the FBI for examination. No word from them so far.

  30. AND THE PSA IS A PUBLIC DOC. TO ALL TO SEE. THEY CANY SAY, AM NOT A PARTY TO THE PSA IF MY LOAN WAS PUT INTO THE PSA. OR A SIGNATURE PARTY TO PSA, NO PARTY IS SHOW TO SIGN THE PSA, MAKING NO PARTY TO PSA. IF THEY EVEN WENT THROUGH WHAT THEY RECORDED TO DO .

    AS THE SEC SAID, JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS RECORDED WITH THE SEC, DOES NOT MEAN THEY
    BANKS,TRUST, DID WHAT THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO. IT JUST MEANS THEY RECORDED SOMETHING. GET IT.. THIS IS WHY ALL THE SETTLEMENTS ARE BEING DONE, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT DO WHAT THE PSA, SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO.

    SO AGAIN THIS IS WERE, A FULL ACCOUNTING OF THE ORIGINATOR, SELLER OF CERTIFICATES, DEPOSITOR, TRUSTS, NEED A COMPLETE AUDIT. BY A INDPENDENT AUDITOR. AND THIS NEED TO BE ORDER FROM COURT. AS THE ONLY WAY TO SEE IF THE LOAN WAS , ASSIGNED, BOUGHT, FOR VALUE, ETC,ETC, FROM START TO FINNISH.

  31. OOOPS…..THERE IT GOES AGAIN.

    Neil, my comments are Magically Disappearing again.
    You said if it happens again to let you know.

    I really wanted to talk about …
    The failed Sale of Property to me….
    The failed attempts for a payoff to tender…
    AND MY HUSBANDS LAST AND FINAL ATTEMPT OF A DIL TO PROTECT ME & Family assets

    Perhaps you could explain why?

    Its Unconsionable & Illegal to separate a 35 year martial estate assets without disclosure & consent of BOTH SPOUSES.

    They tried to steal the goldmine ..35 years of hard labor and assets,
    And give Me the shaft.

  32. Rhody,

    Start getting ‘assignments’ examined by a forensic examiner.
    Backdated fraud, forgery and notary forgery.

  33. Title,

    Excellent.
    If you read the PSA you may find the ‘lender’ unlawfully foreclosing is not even listed in the ‘trust’.
    What they do is provide the PSA with all of the information redacted…

  34. Other elements to this equation that we seem to be missing here is the fact that the reconveyance into the Trusts MUST follow the requirements of the PSA. A trust cannot accept loans from anyone other than the DEPOSITOR for that Trust. Let alone after the closing dates. The PSA is your ‘smoking gun’ as it tells you everything that must happen and not in too hard to understand verbiage.

    The only way the trust could get the loan was from a recorded assignment from the Depositor to the REMIC. Not from the originator straight to the REMIC as nearly everyone I’ve seen purports.

    It also doesn’t matter if your state doesn’t require the recording of the Assignment – the PSA does or the loans didn’t follow protocol.

    The Cut Off Date is the date on which all mortgage loans in the MBS/Trust must be identified and set out in the SEC required list of mortgage loans. Often, these loans were identified and listed for the SEC and the investors, regardless of whether the loan existed or had been closed. The time between cut-off and closing is used to get everything in order and MUST BE CERTIFIED by the Trustee that everything is in total order before the Trust can accept it.

    Compel them the show the certified list required by the SEC that identifies that loan being in there. And if it is, compel them to show payment by the Trust. My bet is that they can’t.

    If you read the PSA (and I have been doing that at nausium) it will specifically verify all of what I’ve said.

  35. I have to agree with losingmyhomeinflorida. The Attorney I’m dealing with admitted there was no assignment as if though no one was supposed to catch what he said.

    The point being is that there “MUST” be an assignment to the “SPECIAL SERVICER” even if the alleged loan never went from say – BOA to CHASE. This is when they are required to notify you that the loan changed hands.

    Also keep in mind that the Special Servicer has to get permission from the CCR (Controlling Class Rep or Trustee) of the Trust to purchase the loan back from the Pool in order to Foreclose.

    It looks as if though they never purchase it because the Insurance Company (FANNIE MAE, GINNIE MAE, SALLY MAE, FREDDIE MACK, etc.) pays for it at full value on notification of default.

    Either way, they get compensated from the Insurance claim, and forced sale of the property.

    So the audacity of this Attorney admitting that there was never an Assignment is his attempt to pull a fast one on everyone.

    It’s three card Molly for pete’s sake.

    He’s hoping to play on the ignorance of everyone involved (Judge Included) who doesn’t understand the flow of how your alleged loan is supposedly assigned over to the Trust.

    You’re going to have to point out that you were never notified of the transfer to the Special Servicer to even have a shot at keeping your home in Florida.

  36. Reblogged this on UZA – people's courts, forums, & tribunals and commented:
    Fraud vitiates everything; in peace

  37. In Georgia does the law require that the promissory Note be recorded contemporaneous at the time a security deed is recorded?

  38. ” When they purchase the paper, even if it is fatally defective, they become holders in due course free from the defenses of the borrower.”

    I respectfully disagree if I understand it properly.

    This is my opinion on the above argument after studying our assignment . Our Assignment of Mortgage was requested and recorded by Bank of America to Bank of New York Mellon, as trustee for the certificateholders of CWABS, INC., Asset backed certificates, on August, 2011. Alarmingly, the content of the Assignment of Mortgage reads that, ” Recorded on March 2007….” This is fatally defective nonsense assignment by any stretch of imagination whether one buys this paper or not. This was a crooked scheme accomplished by the assignor as the closing date of the CWABS Trust was March 2007. If the assignment was done after the closing date, it would have become void not voidable as the trust follows NEW YORK TRUST LAWS no matter where the property is located. It is like having a Chinese food prepared in Chinese recipe and served in other countries. It is still a Chinese food. Such defective Assignment of Mortgage has adverse tax consequences as well resulting from the trustee violating the trust documents and loosing the Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC) status. IRS needs to jump onto these crooks as well. Back dating of an Assignment of Mortgage is insane and invalid as it is like back dating a check for six or ten months and giving it to someone to say have a nice day with it. Not only that defective assignments are void, it violated the federal tax codes. It is time that the FBI needs to probe into these matters with deeper understanding of secrutitization and present evidentiary documents to home owners so that they could bring them to court to get Quite Titles. It’s time for this.

  39. My lawyer tells me a void Assignment _does not_ slander title. The Assignment is VOID, not voidable. It Assigned nothing, defaults back to wherever it came.

  40. FMC Pres Clem Ziroli honored in 2012 as “Finance Champion of the Year”

    http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20121031005379/en/Mortgage-President-Clem-Ziroli-Jr.-Honored-Finance

    Now we know how he did it.

  41. Looks like First Mortgage Corp ceased operations in Oct ’15. Wonder why? Those guys are crooks and should be in jail!

    http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151026006379/en/Mortgage-Ceases-Operations

  42. @John, if THAT ain’t fraud, by it’s very definition, I don’t know what is.

  43. The SEC said it wanted to hold them all “fully accountable” for their misconduct. Give me a massive break. The ‘fully accountable’ was limited to fines and modest disgorgement.

  44. There’s no such thing as ratification of an unlawful act, either. If trust law explicitly bars late assignment, a late assignment can’t be ratified.

    Wonder where the person was who asserted loans were put in false default? She, like others, will be interested in this, which is evidence that bs actually happened:

    “California-based First Mortgage Corporation, a lender that issued Ginnie Mae residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) backed by loans it originated, has agreed to pay $12.7 million to settle fraud charges brought on by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
    .
    From March 2011 to March 2015, First Mortgage and the six senior executives pulled current, performing loans out of Ginnie Mae RMBS by falsely claiming they were delinquent in order to sell them at a profit into newly-issued RMBS, the SEC alleges. In addition, First Mortgage caused its Ginnie Mae RMBS prospectuses to be “false and misleading” by improperly and deceptively using a Ginnie Mae rule that gave issuers the option to repurchase loans that were delinquent by three or more months, the SEC said.
    The executives charged with fraud in the SEC’s complaint agreed to the following settlements:

    http://www.dsnews.com/news/06-01-2016/issuer-of-ginnie-mae-rmbs-settles-with-sec

    Those guys all make me sick. And I doubt First Mortgage was actually first. Maybe the first to get caught. I can’t think any of this would be possible without “MERS”. I’m not saying MERS had anything to do with it, just that if real property interests were kept where they belong, they couldn’t pull this smack or musical notes.

  45. Sorry, the computer imputed a random action. What I was going to note, and seems to have been missed, is that the promissory note and its attached security deed are SOLELY decided under CONTRACT law. If one reads the Notice as to Sale of the Note (usually, Para 20 or 21) of a standard instrument it clearly states that “Sale of Note; Change of Loan Servicer; Notice of Grievance. The Note or a partial interest in the Note (together with this Security Interest) can be sold one or more times without prior notice to Borrower. . .” To possess the Security Interest means that the party can prove that it purchased said Note or Partial and received the security deed. Whether the SD is reassigned post-purchase is an unrelated matter as nominee to hold bare legal title.

  46. I have been following your blog and appreciate your efforts in educating the public. I have a situation where my supposed (security) WAMU mortgage was assigned by Chase/FDIC – 7 years after the trust closed. This was found out on a Bloomberg terminal and respected securitization auditors. Was told this is void? I am very confused as to whether this is in fact, correct information?

  47. what about if their are not recorded assignments? that is the issue with many cases.

  48. …an “event” cannot be “ratified” [as voidable] if it “never occurred…” because the “event” is void ab initio.

  49. Yvanova…and its progeny growing rootz…

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: