Deutsch Bank National Trust Company Was Crushed in Texas in 2015. Why isn’t anyone listening?

When a judge looks carefully at the record, the bank loses. The use of Deutsch’s name in the style of the case still shows that Judges are considering the Plaintiff to be the named “Trustee” instead of the named (or named, which is frequently the case) Trust. In fact the Trustee has nothing to do with foreclosures. In this case the Judge wrote the following:

“Judgment (for the homeowner for declaratory relief) was based on findings and conclusions that Deutsche Bank had failed to prove chain of title back to the original lender, now defunct. The sole proof on which the bank relied — a purported assignment from “MERS as nominee for the lender, its successors and assigns” — was held void, because the assignor did not exist when the document was signed.

“Deutsche Bank’s first argument is based on a misrepresentation of the trial record. [i.e. the lawyers were lying to the court about what was in the trial record].

“The Burkes argued that the stamp block containing the Cathy Powers signature was not a part of the Note as originally executed, and instead offered a copy of the unindorsed Note as one of their own exhibits,

“This absence of documentary proof mirrors the lack of any testimonial evidence of holder status. Given its utter failure of proof, Deutsche Bank’s continuing assertion of a right to foreclose as holder of the Note is not just groundless, it is frivolous. On this trial record the current holder of the Burke Note remains a mystery.

“Deutsche Bank introduced no proof whatever of a prior transaction by which it acquired any rights in the Note. Absent such proof, L’Amoreaux is not controlling. Here MERS was acting on behalf of a defunct entity (IndyMac Bank), and its purported assignment was therefore void and invalid under the Texas common law of assignments, as explained below.

“There is simply no proof of an existing assignor with an existing right in the property capable of being assigned in 2011. It is undisputed that Indy-Mac Bank had been “dead” since 2008, several years prior to the 2011 assignment. (P. Ex. 6, at p. 1). Thus, any post-mortem transaction by that entity would be a nullity under Pool v. Sneed.

“In sum, L’Amoreaux does not undermine this court’s judgment in favor of the Burkes because (1) there is no record evidence of a prior assignment of the lender’s interest in the Note or Deed of Trust, (2) there is no record evidence that any purported assignor existed at the time of the 2011 assignment; and (3) there is no record evidence of a principal/agency relationship between MERS and any “successor or assign” of the lender when the assignment was executed.

“Deutsche Bank’s third argument is a red herring

“a homeowner is allowed “to challenge the chain of assignments by which a party claims a right to foreclose….” Id. at 224. It is true that in Texas an obligor cannot defend against an assignee’s efforts to enforce the obligation on a ground that merely renders the assignment “voidable at the election of the assignor,” such as a fraudulent signature by an unauthorized corporate agent. Id. at 225. The problem here is not a voidable defect that a defrauded assignor might choose to disregard — it is the absence of a valid assignor (i.e. a real entity owning the right to be assigned) in the first place. Cf. L’Amoreaux v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 755 F.3d 748, 750 (5th Cir.2014) (considering homeowner’s challenge to validity of MERS assignment on its merits, implicitly rejecting bank’s “voidable” argument).

“A court’s primary duty in construing a written contract is to ascertain the true intention of the parties as expressed in the language of the document itself. Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex.1983). In this document, the name of the assignor, “Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.” appears three (3) times — in the body of the assignment, above the signature line, and in the corporate acknowledgement. Each time, MERS’s name is immediately followed by the phrase “as nominee for” the lender, IndyMac Bank, its successor and assigns. P. Ex. 2. Nowhere does this document hint that MERS intended to convey its own rights,[8] or that it was acting as principal rather than as agent for other entities.

Words matter, especially in real estate transactions. See Univ. Sav. Ass’n v. Springwoods Shopping Ctr., 644 S.W.2d 705, 706 (Tex.1982) (“the terms set out in a deed of trust must be strictly followed”); see also Mathis v. DCR Mortg. III Sub I, L.L.C., 389 S.W.3d 494, 507 (Tex.App. — El Paso, 2012) (“The rules of interpretation that apply to contracts also apply to notes and deeds of trust.”). Based on the words of the 2011 assignment, MERS was no more acting on its own behalf than was the bank’s own law firm.

“Deutsche Bank asks to reopen the trial record to provide “the wet ink original of the Note or testimony affirming Deutsche Bank’s status as holder of the Note.” (Dkt. 90, at 7). No authority or excuse is offered for this breathtakingly late request. Even assuming such evidence exists, Deutsche Bank does not pretend that it is “newly discovered”, nor that the bank was excusably ignorant about it until after trial despite using due diligence to discover it. See 11 WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2808 (2012). After four years of litigation, including court-ordered mediation and trial on the merits, the time for such a deus ex machina maneuver has long since passed. The Burkes are entitled to the finality of judgment that our judicial process is intended to provide. The bank’s request for a do-over is denied.

Let us help you prepare for trial: 202-838-6345
Get a consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

Hat tip Bill Paatalo

see Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Burke, 117 F. Supp. 3d 953 – Dist

 

Register Today!!! Webinar: Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense. . February 2, 2018 1pm Eastern.

evidence

Evidence via Aggressive Discovery increases opportunities to Prevail.

Suing a servicer?  Unable to obtain the evidence necessary to prevail? Register now for Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar.

This online webinar will provide instruction on establishing your narrative, making objections, conducting cross examinations and how to blow up the robo-witness.

Cases often end during discovery when you get the order you want at which point the other side immediately settles — or you don’t get the order you want. Aggressive and thorough evidence and discovery are critical to successfully defending against foreclosure.

In trial preparation and discovery knowledge is used for one of two things:

1. Eroding the foundation or credibility of the prima facie case against the homeowner.

2. Proving who is who and what is what.

Every successful strategy for winning a foreclosure defense case rests on the ability to blow up the robo-witness and deny the foreclosing party the ability to get documents (hearsay) into evidence — or the ability to make the testimony or document less credible than it would appear at first blush.

Attend this seminar if you want to know why lawyers pay for consultations with me to prepare discovery or trial strategy.

Date: February 2, 2018

Time: 1:00pm Eastern/12:00pm Central/11:00am Mountain/10:00am Pacific

Delivery: Webinar via Computer (WebEx platform) for visual presentation, or by Skype or Phone.

Presenters include:

  • Attorney and Foreclosure Expert Neil F Garfield for GTC Honors, Inc.
  • Securitization Expert Dan Edstrom, DTC Systems, Inc.
  • Investigator Bill Paatalo, BP Investigative Agency
  • Attorney Charles Marshall of the Marshall Law Firm/California.

REGISTRATION: $199 until January 31st, 2018 ($249 after 1/31/2019)

Seminar Length:  Estimated 3-Hours including post-seminar Q&A session (30+  minutes)

Materials for Participants:

  • PowerPoint Printouts (delivered with log-in and by email)
  • Transcript of Seminar (delivered post-seminar)
  • Recording of the Seminar
  • Transcript of Cross Examination (delivered by email)
  • CLE Credits Requested: 2 Civil Litigation

LECTURE TOPICS:

  1. Law vs. Politics
  2. The Politics of Home Foreclosures
  3. Realities for Investors
  4. Reality vs. Legal Doctrine: No action arises from deceit
  5. Strategies for Homeowners When the Salesman is Dead
  6. Information v Evidence
  7. Reality v Paper
  8. Void v. Voidable
  9. The Fictional Boarding Process
  10. Standing and Jurisdiction
  11. Objections
  12. Motions in Limine
  13. Cross examinations
  14. Robo-witnesses and signatures
  15. Negotiable Instruments
  16. Nonexistent Transactions
  17. Fabrication of Documents
  18. Who’s on first?
  19. Unfunded Trusts
  20. Inside & Outside of Discovery: Requests for Production, Interrogatories, Request for physical access (computers) and Request for Admissions
  21. Motion for Summary Judgement
  22. Admitting information into evidence
  23. Reveal Absence of Evidence
  24. Fraud on the Court
  25. Compliance with Pre-Trial Orders

 

The seminar is conducted by computer or by phone.  However, to access all webinar visuals you must log in by computer into the webinar.  Registrants will receive directions within 24 hours prior to the seminar with instructions to access the WebEx seminar.

Discovery is where the rubber meets the road. This seminar will help you navigate the discovery and evidence minefield with skill.  

What is Discovery?

Discovery describes the process of requesting information from the other party in a lawsuit.

It is an invaluable weapon in the fight to defend your home against the banks. If you are being sued by the bank and they are alleging that they are entitled to foreclose on your home, you must find out exactly what evidence, if any, they are basing these allegations on.

You’ll want to see a copy of the original promissory note to determine if your original lender endorsed this evidence of the debt through an assignment of mortgage. Filing for discovery can help you formulate your defenses and build the strength of your case prior to any trial or final summary judgment.

In order for parties to obtain discovery, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure have set forth a means by which to accomplish this end, and those legal avenues are specifically outlined in Rules 1.340, 1.350 and 1.370. Most states have comparable civil procedures.

Three Kinds of Discovery:

Discovery can be grouped into three categories: oral discovery (depositions), written discovery (interrogatories and requests for admission), and visual inspection (requests for production). These are collectively referred to as “discovery requests.” As a handy rule of thumb, you can think of discovery requests as requests to either discuss something (depositions), answer something (interrogatories), admit or deny something (requests for admission), or produce something (requests for production).

A Foreclosure Cannot Proceed when Discovery is Pending:

Discovery is critical because it enables the parties to properly develop their arguments, it can also be a strategic tool in preclude the bank from getting a Final Judgment (loss of the home) entered against the borrower. Florida case law states that Courts should NOT enter Final Judgments while the discovery process is still on-going.

Specifically, “Summary judgment should not be granted until the facts have been sufficiently developed for the court to be reasonably certain that no genuine issue of material fact exists.”Singer v. Star, 510 So.2d 637, 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)

And furthermore:

“As a general rule, a court should not enter summary judgment when the opposing party has not completed discovery.” Singer; Colby v. Ellis, 562 So.2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)

Thus, if you’ve filed discovery and that discovery has not been properly responded to by the banks, then the Courts should NOT enter Final Judgment against the homeowner!

Only 30 Requests for Discovery Per Case:

There is a limit to the number of times you can make a request for discovery and that number is 30. Otherwise, the defendant could just continue filing discovery requests indefinitely.

With a limited number of Admissions and Interrogatories you can seek, you need to know what requests will maximize traction. If the Bank refuses to respond to your discovery requests or if their responses are less than satisfactory you must file a Motion to Compel and move the Court to require the bank to provide the information you seek.

The Banks and Servicers are going to object to most of your demands.  Now What?

While both the attorneys and the judges might contest your right to receive information about the origination or sale of the loan, you are absolutely entitled to inquire about whether anything they said is true or if it is all a lie. And the only party who has that information, and the only party resisting with all their considerable might is the originator and the participants in the chain of the alleged securitization or even in the chain of the securitization which is denied by them.

The scope of discovery is intended to be broad but to prevent mere fishing expeditions that are intrusive on the other party toward no end. They will argue that holding the note closes the issue and the judge will agree with them until you pull out the statute and point out that the proof of the actual loan is necessary in all cases except where they allege to be the holder in due course, which they never do.   Register now for the seminar to advance your understanding of handling discovery and evidence in foreclosure defense.  Click here to register.

About the Presenters:

Neil F. Garfield, M.B.A., J.D., is the winner of dozens of academic awards, a popular speaker, and author of articles and technical treatises on law, finance and economics. He has concentrated his law practice for the last 8 years on issues related to structured finance (securitization in particular). As a former investment banker and real estate investor, he knows mortgage securitization issues from the inside out, who the deciders are, and how they arrived at a catastrophic scheme to defraud, people, agencies, institutions, and governments all over the world. As an expert witness and trial lawyer for 38 years, his efforts to spot evolving trends have helped thousands of homeowners keep their home and receive damages as compensation. Having formerly filed hundreds of foreclosure actions as the attorney for small banks, homeowner associations and mechanics liens, he is well suited to provide assistance to investigators, lawyers and pro se litigants.

Investigator Bill Paatalo has been a licensed private investigator since September of 2009. He has 17 years combined experience in both law enforcement and the mortgage industry which he has utilized to become a leading expert in the areas of chain of title analyses and securitization. He was a police officer with the St. Paul, Minnesota Police Department from 1990-1996 where he was assigned “Field Training Officer” duties in only his second year on the job, and received multiple commendations.  Mr. Paatalo has worked exclusively since 2010 investigating foreclosure fraud, chain of title, the securitization of residential and commercial mortgage loans, and accounting issues relevant to alleged “defaults.” Mr. Paatalo is also a Certified Forensic Mortgage Loan Auditor through (“CFLA”), and has spent more than 10,000 hours conducting investigatory research specifically related to mortgage securitization and chain of title analysis. He has performed such analyses for residential real estate located in many states, including but not limited to, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Florida, Montana, Texas, Arizona, Ohio, New Jersey, and several other states. To date, Mr. Paatalo has conducted nearly 1,000 investigations across the U.S., and has provided written expert testimony in the form of affidavits and declarations in approximately 120 -130 cases nationwide. Mr. Paatalo has been qualified in both state and federal courts as an expert.

Dan Edstrom, of DTC Systems, performs securitization audits, and spent a year putting together a diagram that traced the path of his own house’s mortgage securization that went viral in 2012-2013.  DTC Systems provides research services to lawyers, paralegals, loan auditors, and government agencies for securitization of residential mortgages.  DTC Systems is adept at locating the trusts that loans were pooled into as well as monthly certificate-holder statements and monthly loan level files.

Christiana Trust/Wilmington Savings Crash and Burn on Standing and More

Florida 4th DCA Opinion:

In this mortgage foreclosure case, the underlying mortgage was passed around like the flu, giving rise to a complexity of ownership that frustrated the appellee’s attempts to demonstrate standing at trial. To the answer brief, the appellee attached a chart of the ownership lineage of the mortgage and note, with different types of arrows pointing in all directions, a valiant effort which demonstrated that the transfer history here defies pictorial representation.

Let us help you prepare your narrative (blue print) for litigation: 202-838-6345
Get a consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

see J Gross 4th DCA Opinion Goshen Mortgage adv Supria 12-6-17

You can’t make this stuff up. Order to enter JUDGMENT for homeowner not merely dismissal.

On the original note, Centerpointe Financial, Inc. is the lender. There is no blank indorsement from Centerpointe. There was an allonge purporting to effect a transfer, but the allonge was lost and not produced at trial. Appellee conceded at trial that it was not a holder of the note, but contended that it qualified as a nonholder in possession with the rights of a holder.

“A nonholder in possession may prove its right to enforce the note through: (1) evidence of an effective transfer; (2) proof of purchase of the debt; or (3) evidence of a valid assignment.” Bank of N.Y. Mellon Tr. Co., N.A. v. Conley, 188 So. 3d 884, 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). “A nonholder in possession must account for its possession of the instrument by proving the transaction (or series of transactions) through which it acquired the note.” Id. (citing Murray v. HSBC Bank USA, 157 So. 3d 355, 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)).

Therefore, “[t]o prove standing as a nonholder in possession with the rights of a holder, the plaintiff must prove the chain of transfers starting with the first holder of the note.” PennyMac Corp. v. Frost, 214 So. 3d 686, 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (citing Murray, 157 So. 3d at 357-58). “Where the plaintiff ‘cannot prove that [a transferor] had any right to enforce the note, it cannot derive any right from [the transferor] and is not a nonholder in possession of the instrument with the rights of a holder to enforce.’” PennyMac, 214 So. 3d at 689 (quoting Murray, 157 So. 3d at 359).

Here, the first assignment of the note was invalid, because nothing in evidence demonstrated that the assignor had the authority to transfer or assign an interest in the note. Similarly, a second assignment was also invalid because nothing demonstrated that the assignor had an interest in the note that it could transfer. Among other problems, the third and fifth assignments transferred the mortgage, but not the note. The fourth assignment was infirm because of the problems with the earlier assignments.

One legal problem created by the third and fifth assignment is that a “mortgage follows the assignment of the promissory note, but an assignment of the mortgage without an assignment of the debt creates no right in the assignee.” Tilus v. Michai LLC, 161 So. 3d 1284, 1286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). “‘[A] mortgage is but an incident to the debt, the payment of which it secures, and its ownership follows the assignment of the debt’— not the other way around.” Peters v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 227 So. 3d 175, 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (quoting Johns v. Gillian, 184 So. 140, 143 (Fla. 1938)). The oblique reference in the assignments of mortgage to “moneys now owing” was not sufficient to transfer an interest in the note. See Jelic v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 178 So. 3d 523, 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

Because appellee failed to establish its standing to foreclose, we reverse the final judgment and remand for the entry of judgment for the appellant.

The West Coast Foreclosure Show: Fraudulent Indorsements in Non-Judicial Foreclosures

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The West Coast Radio Show with Charles Marshall

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

Attorney Charles Marshall and Investigator Bill Paatalo will examine the indorsement of notes in non-judicial foreclosures. Judges are increasingly discounting fraudulent endorsement that appear out of nowhere, seemingly to “perfect” the right to foreclose.

Judgments are often based on erroneous conclusions especially when the Bank fails to prove the chain of title back to the original lender, who is often defunct. If the entity that endorsed the note didn’t exist when the note was indorsed- it is void.

Investigator Bill Paatalo will discuss Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Burke, 117 F. Supp. 3d 953 , a 2015 Texas case where the judge refuses to allow Duetche one more chance, ruling “the banks request for a do-over is denied.”

 

“​From the very beginning of trial, Deutsche Bank’s counsel was on notice that if it wanted to introduce its version of the Note indorsed in blank, some proof of authentication would be necessary. Deutsche Bank never offered such proof at trial.​….​”
Deutsche Bank asked to reopen the trial record to provide “the wet ink original of the Note or testimony affirming Deutsche Bank’s status as holder of the Note.”  Deutsche Bank offered no authority or excuse is offered for this “breathtakingly” late request. Even assuming such evidence existed, Deutsche Bank did not pretend that it is “newly discovered”, nor that the bank was excusably ignorant about it until after trial despite using due diligence to discover it (see 11 WRIGHT, MILLER & KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE
AND PROCEDURE § 2808 (2012)).
Deutsche Bank made a misrepresentation of the trial record claiming that it introduced
into evidence the Burke note indorsed in blank by the original lender (IndyMac Bank), thereby establishing its right to foreclose as holder of the Note. This claim is baseless, because, as the trial transcript made clear, the only version of the Note successfully introduced by Deutsche Bank at trial contained no indorsement of any kind.  Like so many other cases, it is probable that Deutsche Bank’s attorneys would have simply forged an endorsement on the note and claimed they accidentally filed the wrong version of the note due to a clerical error.  Most judges would have probably allowed Deutsche another go.
“After four years of litigation, including court-ordered mediation and trial on the merits,
the time for such a deus ex machina maneuver has long since passed. The Burkes are entitled to the finality of judgment that our judicial process is intended to provide. The bank’s request for a do-over is denied.”  Shout out to Houston Magistrate Stephen William Smith for applying the law.

To Contact Charles Marshall:

Law Offices of Charles T. Marshall
 To contact Investigator Bill Paatalo:

Investigator Bill Paatalo at the

BP Investigative Agency

Email: info.bpia@gmail.com

Office: 406-328-4075

 

Wells Fargo “Explains” Securitization

YOU NEED AN INFINITE NUMBER OF BASES AND PLAYERS TO PLAY BALL WITH THESE GUYS: The Trustee controls the trust as trustee. Oops, wait, it is the Master Servicer who has all the control. No, wait again, it is the subservicer who has the right to administer the loan. But actually if there is an alleged default it is the special servicer who has exclusive authority over decision making. Except that the “Controlling Class” has the last say in the matter. But actually it is the Controlling Class Representative who has the last word.

I have always felt that there must be some way to force the other side into approving a modification or at least providing access by the borrower to the “lender” to discuss or negotiate the matter. I still believe that. Maybe this article will help spur some ideas. Information is leverage, especially in the world of false claims of securitization.

 

Let us help you prepare your narrative (blue print) for litigation: 202-838-6345
Get a consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

Hat Tip Bill Paatalo

see Wells Fargo Document – No Lender in Remics

Essentially the banks would have us believe that by magic they created loans without owners or holders in due course. So it might as well be the banks who foreclose under any pretense they choose to offer. The political decision was to let them do it for fear that the banks would bring down the entire system. But if that were true, the bank’s capital would be worthless as would every world currency including the dollar. They bluffed Presidents Bush and Obama and the Presidents blinked. Millions of foreclosures followed because the ordinary guy is just not that important even if it involves a substantial portion of a population.

I will provide my comments and suggestions for discovery or cross examination along with each statement in the above cited article. Keep in mind that the entire article is an exercise in deceit: It is assuming that securitization actually happened. If that were true then they would be more than happy to show that the subject loan was purchased on a certain date by the payment of value to a specific seller by a trust. The trust would then be a holder in due course. But as we have seen numerous times nobody ever refers to the trust as a holder in due course which can only mean there was no such purchase.

The indented portions are direct quotes from the WFDb article cited above.

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.

That’s the first sentence of the “explanation.” And the first thing that pops out is “conduit loans.” What is a conduit loan? Is the subject loan a conduit loan? In what way is the subject loan a conduit loan? [This also corroborates what I have been writing for years — that Matt Taibbi (Rolling Stone Magazine) got it right when he describes securitization as a monster with multiple tentacles.]

There is no legal definition for a conduit loan. The banks would have us believe that if they present any tentacle, that is sufficient for them to foreclose on a loan. But that isn’t legal standing — it is fraud on the court. A loan is a loan, but Wall Street banks don’t want you thinking about that. But by calling it something different it immediately plays into the bias of the court assuming that the big banks know what they are doing and that only they can explain what is going on.

Corroborating my description of the “Conduit”: remark, WFB explains that you are not dealing with a lender anymore. Is that supposed to make us feel better? There is no lender? Was there ever a lender? If, yes, then please identify the party who loaned their money to the borrower.

Now this on servicer advances:

If a loan becomes delinquent, the Master Servicer is usually obligated to make the first three or four payments to the certificate holders as well as pay trust expenses on delinquent assets…

The Master Servicer is reimbursed when the borrower makes up the payment or when the property goes into foreclosure and is later sold.

So we are being told that the Master Servicer is making payments to investors regardless of whether the borrower makes any payment. First, the payments to investors are made by the Master Servicer because they are the only one with access to a giant slush fund or dark pool created out of money that should have a gone to each trust and been maintained as a trust account, administered by the trustee.

But it is true that the Master Servicer gets paid for the “servicer advances” when the property is sold. So if the investors received 12 months of payments (of at least interest), even though it was taken out of a reserve pool (read the prospectus) consisting of their own money, the Master Servicer gets paid as though it was a reimbursement when in fact it is a windfall. Needless to say the incentive is to let the case languish for years before foreclosure and sale take place.

The longer the time period between the alleged default and the sale of the property, the more money is received by the Master Servicer as “reimbursement” for money it never advanced.

The Special Servicer makes all final decisions about dispositions of defaulted property and Real Estate Owned (REO). Often they are also the holders of the “first loss pieces” of the pool. Because they are taking the most risk, as part of their agreement to take that risk, they usually insist on being the Special Servicer as a requirement of their investment. There are only a handful of special servicers in the country.

Really? So the Master Servicer, the subservicer and the Trustee of the alleged REMIC trust have no say in whether to work out or modify a loan that is economically not feasible but which could be feasible if there was a workout or modification. What is a first loss piece of the pool? What is the account name of the pool supposedly held in a bank somewhere? Does the account name match the alleged REMIC trust in any way? Is there an account administered by the Trustee? Does the Trustee get performance reports or end of month statements?

Oops wait! There are other people with special powers —

The PSA also designates a “Controlling Class” who will provide input on recommendations for Special Serviced Loans and REO.

If the Special Servicer is willing to extend the loan, they have to get permission from the Controlling Class Representative (CCR), who is a fiduciary for all the certificate holders.

Anyone who has seen that famous but from Abbot and Costello in the 1950’s understands what is happening here. The Trustee controls the trust as trustee. Oops, wait, it is the Master Servicer who has all the control. No, wait again, it is the subservicer who has the right to administer the loan. But actually if there is an alleged default it is the special servicer who as exclusive authority over decision making. Except that the “Controlling Class” has the last say in the matter. But actually it is the Controlling Class Representative who has the last word.

So in discovery ask which of those entities was contacted about modification and why the borrower was instructed to send the application and documents to the subservicer when the subservicer had no authority?

And let’s not forget the fact that the certificate holders have no right, title or interest in the loans, the debt , the note or the mortgage. So their “Fiduciary” (who apparently is not the Trustee of the alleged Trust) does what?  How do we contact these intermediaries to whom powers and obligations of a trustee are passed around like free money? How do we know if the subservicer is telling the truth when it reports that the “investor” turned down the settlement or modification.

And by the way, why do we not have recording of the modification agreement? Why does not the Trustee of the REMIC Trust sign the modification agreement? Instead it is ALWAYS the signature of the servicer who, as we already know, has no power to accept or deny requests for modifications — and of course it is never recorded in county records. Why?

Remember, there are no “pockets of money” to use for refinance. Special Servicers, although legally allowed by the PSA to forgive any portion of the debt, rarely do so because often that would negatively affect one or more of the bondholders at the expense of the others. Instead, the Special Servicer, on behalf of the conduit, will almost always foreclose and sell the asset.

Hmmmm. So the Special Servicer (and the CCR?) ordinarily chooses to drive down the price of the collateral and take a larger loss on the subject loan because it “would negatively affect one or more of the bondholders at the expense of the others.” But the principal reduction would positively affect some bond holders more than others by saving the collateral. So exactly what are they saying as Wells Fargo Bank about the roles and rules of securitization?

And lastly, why did WFB task authors to write about this when their experience is limited to manufactured home communities? Probably the same reason why robo-witnesses know nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ocwen Admission Confounds Judges and Experts

This is a blatant attempt at deception  — a deceit without which none of the Trusts would be recognized as legal entities much less the owner of loans. Ocwen is admitting that there is no single owner of the loan it is allegedly “servicing.” “There is no single owner of the account, but rather the account is one of many in a securitized investment trust.”

For the uninitiated, this statement might suffice or at least be threatening enough as a challenge to their experience and intelligence to direct them away from the central false assertion that the trusts own any loan. They don’t.

Let us help you prepare for deposition or trial: 202-838-6345
Get a consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

Hat Tip Bill Paatalo

see Ocwen Responsive Letter – CFPB – 11-03-2017

In this real live case, Ocwen is fulfilling its job that includes obfuscation as one of its paramount duties. After first “answering” the CFPB requests with obfuscation it then states “The ownership status of the account is based upon our review of our records as of the date of this letter.” It doesn’t say that the information is correct or even believed to be correct. It doesn’t say they performed due diligence to determine whether a true chain of ownership exists, combing the various records of “predecessors.”

Nor is there a statement that Ocwen is authorized to service the account. It simply says that it IS servicing the account. And of course then they do not assert the basis of their authority since they never asserted their authority. It is implied. It is assumed. In court, it might well be presumed by the court, the foreclosure mill attorney and even by the borrower and the borrower’s attorney. This is one of the errors that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. An attack on what is missing instead of trying to dodge what is there would result in far more victories for homeowners.

The attorney’s client is Ocwen. Ocwen is impliedly asserting authority to service but can’t show it. In one recent case of mine, they came in with a Power of Attorney signed by someone who purportedly executed the instrument on behalf of Chase. The problem was that Chase was never mentioned before in any pleading, documents or testimony. The POA was false.

Back to ownership: “there is no single owner” implies that there are many owners. There are several problems with that assertion or implication that involve outright lying. Ocwen is saying that the loan is in a securitized investment trust which certainly would imply that the loan is not in transit nor is it owned by more than one trust.

Further if the reference (omitted) is to investors, that too is a lie in most cases. The certificate indenture usually contains the express statement that the holder of the certificate receives no right, title or interest to the debt, note or mortgage in “underlying” loans (which have never been acquired by the trust anyway).

So what are we left with? No single owner which means that the securitized investment trust doesn’t own it because that is one single entity. Multiple owners does not refer to investors because the express provisions on their certificates say they have no ownership of the debt, note or mortgage in the alleged loan.

The counterintuitive answer is that the bank’s are saying there is no owner. But there is an owner. It is a group of investors whose money was used to fund or acquire the loan. This was not done through any trust, as they intended and as was required by the “securitization” documents. If that was the case then the trust would have been named as lender or as holder in due course. That never happened.

But the holders of worthless securities can claim an equitable interest in the loan and perhaps even the collateral. In order to establish that interest the investors must go to a court of competent jurisdiction. But in order to do that the investors must know about the specific loan transaction(s), which they don’t. The fact that they don’t know about it and can’t exercise their rights does not mean that legally, anyone can intervene and assert ownership rights.

Ten years ago I said get rid of the current servicers and stick a government agency in as intermediary so that investors, as real parties in interest and borrowers as real parties in interest could do what the lending industry normally does best — work this out so that nobody loses everything and nobody gets a windfall. This could have all been over years ago and the impact on the economy would have been a powerful stimulus leaving no inherent weakness in our economy or our currency.

Unfortunately the courts strayed from making legal decisions and instead made a political decision to save the banking industry at the expense of homeowners.

 

 

 

A Little Bit of Foreclosure Soap Won’t Wash Away Those Unclean Hands

One who comes into equity must come with clean hands else all relief will be denied him regardless of merit of his claim and is not essential that act be a crime; it is enough that it be condemned by honest and reasonable men” Roberts v Roberts, 84 So.2d 717 (Fla. 1956)
By Joel Sucher, Contributor
New York filmmaker/author/blogger

It sounds almost biblical; a pronouncement from up high and a warning that those who crave riches must do so by ethical means: so-called “clean hands.” In other words: the ends don’t justify the means and it’s actually a legal theory with a bit of provenance and the quote itself is from a Florida decision, circa 1956, which is now being used with some efficacy in foreclosure cases; albeit in states where the courts oversee the process (Florida being one).

 

A little bit of soap may — as the Jarmels famously sung — wash the lipstick off your face or powder from you chin but it will never, never wash away the fraud — according to this doctrine — perpetrated by those in the financial services industry who relentlessly pursue home seizures via fraudulent note endorsements, mortgage assignments and robo-signed affidavits; supporting materials necessary to prove the right (a/k/a “standing”) to pursue a foreclosure.

 

Unfortunately, in all too many cases the banking/foreclosure industry has have gotten away with it. One only needs to review the collateral damage (think, “homeowners”) that followed the 2008 subprime meltdown to see the devastation wrought to communities around the country and let’s not forget those impacted were folk of all political leanings.

Bruce Jacobs, a Miami based lawyer and former state prosecutor, is riding point in a legal charge to make good use of “unclean hands” as a foreclosure defense and his arguments have begun to resonate with some Florida judges.

 

One of his cases — Wells Fargo v John Riley — was dismissed last December in a Palm Beach, Florida Circuit Court, after the Judge found plaintiffs had failed to scrub unclean hands; to wit: Wells Fargo and its servicer, JP Morgan Chase (both parties to the $25 billion National Mortgage Settlement) relied on false testimony and failed to explain how an endorsement from the original lender, Washington Mutual (remember them? The financial institution notable for being history’s biggest bank failure) came to be affixed to the note years after WAMU went out of business. Finally, the court found that the “purported mortgage loan schedules” was a phony; missing essential data (plaintiff’s witness first claimed that this was done to protect the borrower’s “privacy.” The Judge forced the witness, upon cross-examination, to admit that it had nothing to do with privacy. It was simply missing).

 

It seemed that the plaintiffs had taken one too many Mulligans in trying to justify how Wells Fargo had obtained the mortgage and note which finally led the Judge to this conclusion:

The court finds Plaintiff failed to prove every element of its case by substantial competent evidence and has unclean hands, and enters judgement in favor of the Defendant, John Riley.

In short, the good guys — at least in this case — win.

To read the rest of the article continue here: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-little-bit-of-foreclosure-soap-wont-wash-away-those_us_5a359b36e4b02bd1c8c6074a

%d bloggers like this: