Tonight — Silent Roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — Hiding Behind the Obtuse

How to Withhold Vital Information from Homeowners

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

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

Charles Marshall, Attorney and Bill Paatalo, licensed investigator discuss the moral hazard created by the Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) banks, the courts and the regulators in allowing “presumptions” to be used even when the actual facts are different from the presumed facts.

Fannie and Freddie have long been a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

Before false claims of securitization, before fabrication and forgery of documents, the GSEs had fairly clear role in the origination, servicing and enforcement of mortgages. Now they are used as cover to hide lack of ownership where the banks and servicers make the homeowner travel and endless loop leading nowhere.

Now, as to any specific loan, we don’t know which of the following applies:

  1.  GSE is the guarantor of the loan (basically like a third party insurer with government backing)
  2. GSE is Master Trustee of a REMIC Trust in which there is a named Trustee who has the same powers, rights and obligations as the Master Trustee — i.e., no powers to actively administer the active affairs of the trust because there is no business or assets in the trust.
  3. GSE is or was a purchaser for cash.
  4. GSE is or was a purchaser using MBS issued by a named trust that either exists or doesn’t exist.
  5. GSE, using Trust A MBS paid Trust A for loans owned by the Trust or for loans not owned by the trust.
  6. GSE was a seller of the subject debt, note or mortgage.
  7. GSE claimed ownership when it didn’t own the subject debt, note or mortgage.
  8. GSE showed subject loan on its website but had no interest in the subject debt, note or mortgage (or foreclosure).
  9. Third parties claimed that GSE owned the subject debt, note and/or mortgage and it was true.
  10. Third parties claimed that GSE owned the subject debt, note and/or mortgage and it was false.

Adverse Possession vs Cancellation of Instrument and Quiet Title

In the final analysis, the only way to smoke out the banks on their fraudulent claims as “creditors” or “agents of creditors” is to create a situation where the creditor must be disclosed. In those cases where judges have ruled in discovery or ruled on the right to prepay, subject to identification of the creditor, the cases have all settled under seal of confidentiality. There are thousands of such cases buried under side agreements requiring “Confidentiality.”

Let us help you plan your complaint, discovery requests and defense narrative:

954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult. You will make things a lot easier on us and yourself if you fill out the registration form. It’s free without any obligation. No advertisements, no restrictions.

Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations. Presenters: Attorney and Expert Neil Garfield, Forensic Auditor Dan Edstrom, Attorney Charles Marshall and and Private Investigator Bill Paatalo. The webinar and materials are all downloadable.

Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

GO TO WWW.LENDINGLIES.COM OR 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.

===========================

I have been seeing a number of people adding Adverse Possession to their theories about Quieting title. So let me say first that an order granting quiet title to a homeowner whose title is encumbered by a recorded mortgage or deed of trust is practically impossible not only because judges don’t want to grant it, but for the more important reason that quiet title is not legally sound strategy for homeowners seeking defend their homes from foreclosure.

In order to quiet title, one would need to allege and prove by clear and convincing evidence that the mortgage or deed of trust should never have been executed or recorded in the first place. Anything less than that does not deserve quiet title declaration from any court. The fact that a certain party purports to have authority to enforce the mortgage or deed of trust when in fact they don’t have such authority is damn good reason not  to let them enforce the mortgage or deed of trust. But that does not mean that the instrument is void.

Here is the response I gave to a question about adverse possession:

Adverse possession does not seem to apply to this situation. But it is possible that you could get traction by filing a lawsuit to cancel the DOT (Cancellation of Instrument) and maybe even get a order quieting title to your name. This is not simple and the requirements and elements of such claims are difficult to fulfill.

Adverse possession is usually utilized in boundary disputes.
A mortgage or a deed of trust is an interest in real property. And where we are dealing with the deed of trust,The trustee is receiving title to the property. So technically you are probably correct. But when you look deeper, You will see that adverse possession does not apply.
The transfer of title to a trustee under the deed of trust divests the homeowner of title. Under the terms of the DOT you are entitled to live there and act, for all  purposes, as though you are the title owner including in a foreclosure proceeding. Hence several elements of adverse possession are not met especially “adverse,” since you have express permission under a contract to be there and to act as the title owner.
ELEMENTS OF ADVERSE POSSESSION: (NOTE — the “title owner is the DOT trustee)
  • Continuous
  • Open
  • Notorious
  • Peaceful, Peaceable
  • Hostile (claiming title against the interest of the party who actually has title)
  • Adverse (no permission or contractual right to assert title against the party who is seized with title).
  • Exclusive (barring claims or use by the actual title owner
  • Visible (putting a fence on your neighbor’s yard, ignoring the property line)
  • Actual (not implied)
But the fact that the DOT conveyed title to a real trustee on behalf of a false beneficiary is probably the basis for a lawsuit to cancel the instrument (if you can prove your allegations) and then get an order declaring the title is quieted, free from the encumbrance of record that is declared by the judge to be void.
 *
You need to be careful though about your conclusion that the DOT was void. This involves several factual questions that are not obvious. Even a void instrument could conceivably be valid if it contains a defect that is corrected or could be corrected by affidavit pursuant to local law.
 *
Your argument would be that no such affidavit was ever offered. Thus even after you filed your lawsuit, they failed or refused to make any corrections.
 *
Their argument will circle around third party beneficiary, “standing,” and the fact that SOME party could enforce it if they could show that they were the intended beneficiary despite the recitation on the face of the DOT.
 *
This is not the basis for a simple legal argument. Each side must allege and prove their factual (what happened, when, where, who was involved and why) allegations by at least a preponderance of the evidence and most probably, legal or not, the homeowner would be held to a higher standard of clear and convincing evidence informally or formally because the recorded documents carry a “presumption” of authenticity and validity that the homeowner must overcome.
 *
Academically speaking such claims are well-founded. But in practice judges look at such claims as gimmicks to get around a legitimate debt. In order to combat that we must figure out a way to bring in a party who has a legitimate claim to represent the unknown and undisclosed creditors.
 *
The banks have successfully cast the money trail in obscurity. The banks are committing fraud with each foreclosure in my opinion and in the opinion of everyone else I know that has analyzed the securitization of mortgage debt. But they have made it appear that there is nobody other than the bank’s pet entities (the so-called trusts) to play the role of creditor.

Securitization and Standing

Like other decisions establishing  the law of the land, the decisions of SCOTUS are often taken as advisory or optional. Nevertheless TILA Rescission and Article III standing have been affirmed by the Court of last resort. Reluctant judges in trial and appellate courts will get their hands slapped one more time but all the bad prior decisions and their consequences  are neither reversed nor redressed.

Standing is pretty easy — it must be alleged in facts that will be proven at trial. If it isn’t alleged or isn’t proven at trial, the Court lacks jurisdiction to do anything other than to dismiss the claims of any party seeking satisfaction because they have no claim for redress.

Let us help you plan your defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: Dial 954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.

Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations. Presenters: Attorney and Expert Neil Garfield, Forensic Auditor Dan Edstrom, Attorney Charles Marshall and and Private Investigator Bill Paatalo. The webinar and materials are all downloadable.

Get a Consult and TEAR (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230 or 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 2017 US Supreme Court case defining burden of PLEADING legal standing: Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1645, 1650-1651 (2017)

There are three elements of standing:

  1. The party claiming the ultimate relief (like the party seeking foreclosure) MUST have already suffered an injury in fact — one that is “concrete and particularized.” This means that alleging a default is not enough. The presumption that the pleading party suffered economic loss only arises if they plead and prove that they had a right to payment which was not received, thus constituting a default. Nobody alleges that because it isn’t true. Nobody is entitled to any satisfaction in court without pleading and proving facts that the alleged default actually caused financial loss (injury) to the party seeking relief (or the disclosed principal in an agency relationship with the party seeking foreclosure). This feature is particularly twisted in nonjudicial states where the party makes no claim for foreclosure; instead they merely file papers in the county records and put the home up for sale. Standing is nonetheless required in both judicial and nonjudicial states — a fact often ignored in most courtrooms.
  2. The injury must be traceable to conduct of the party alleged to be in default or breach. Hence the party seeking satisfaction through foreclosure must establish that they had a legal right to receive the payments that were specified in the note and mortgage (deed of trust) either because they own the debt or because they represent someone else who owns the debt. Failure to reveal the party who owns the debt leaves the court without any pleading or proof as to who, if anyone, was financially injured when the homeowner stopped making payments to a party that could possibly be the authorized representative to receive such payments and also could possibly not be the authorized party to receive payments. The presumption of injury only arises  when the right to receive payments is both alleged and proven. Once again, courts have twisted this element beyond recognition. The missing creditor is presumed to exist, without a name or any other identifying characteristics.
  3. The injury, once established, must be likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. So if the foreclosure occurs and the sale is made, what will be the ultimate result of liquidation of the property. The answer is that unrelated parties will enjoy the fruits of foreclosure, which is why servicers are under strict instructions not to reveal the recipient of funds paid by putative borrowers. The proceeds from the sale of the property must be claimed by the party seeking foreclosure or claimed by the party on whose behalf the foreclosure was pursued (assuming that party is the owner of the debt and not another conduit). The trusts are all conduits if they claim REMIC status. That is why there are never allegations that the trust owns the debt or is anything other than other than a “holder.” The right to enforce appears to be presumed but is inaccurate since the Trustee and the Trust were absent from any transaction involving the subject loan. So if the proceeds are not going to the party who loaned money and are not going to anyone who bought the debt, there is no subject matter jurisdiction. Here again the courts are twisting laws beyond comprehension by presuming everything that is not susceptible to proof.

The side note is that it does not appear that the REMIC trusts actually exist or were involved in any financial transaction relating to the loans that lawyers claim it owns. SO the claimant does not exist leaving the court without any semblance of jurisdiction if the pleadings are scrutinized for allegations that the “Trust” is a REMIC business trust organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, for example. They don’t make that allegation — common to all other pleadings in other civil cases — because the trust is merely a graphic image having no significance except for the purposes of foreclosure.

 

New Florida Law Sneaks Under the Radar

BE CAREFUL HOW AND WHEN YOU FILE BANKRUPTCY PETITIONS

Governor Scott, admits 30 other bills signed SB 220 into law. You can barely find it using search engines. The law is   confusing at best and probably unconstitutional but here it is.

The new law makes BKR filings by Petitioner into presumptions in judicial foreclosures — but only the filings of the Petitioner (raising all sorts of constitutional issues). The filings by parties claiming to be creditors do not raise the same presumption unless other legal presumptions should be applied.

So now foreclosing parties can use the filings of the Petitioner against himself. As I have repeatedly stated, BKR filings by homeowners are generally misleading or wrong. Petitioners are admitting the lien and they temporarily surrender the property. The usual computer program that creates the Petition and schedules of bankruptcy makes it difficult to file anything but the wrong schedules.

This new law enables banks and servicers to use the interim period where the home is technically owned by U.S. Trustee in Bankruptcy, disregarding the fact that the Trustee typically abandons any such interest by the end of the BKR proceedings. The logic is the homeowner lacks standing to raise defenses because he/she has surrendered the  property to the court. It gets even worse when the schedules admit the debt and admit the security instrument. ALL OF THIS CAN BE USED AS PRESUMPTIVE (AND TREATED AS CONCLUSIVE) EVIDENCE IN FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS.

Bottom Line: Florida has enacted a law that is out of context and fails to treat debtors and creditors equally with respect to their filings in bankruptcy court. Homeowners in bankruptcy might be blocked from using the proceeding to stop a foreclosure, although the party claiming the status of “creditor” must still apply to lift the stay. Under the new law, the filing of a BKR petition  would essentially be a confession of judgment in foreclosure judicial proceedings blocking homeowners from raising any meritorious defenses because they no longer own the property.

Meanwhile the property records still show the homeowner as owner, and will continue to do so until the foreclosure judgment is entered and the judicial sale is complete together with a certificate of title to the bidder, who in most cases is a sham creditor claiming the right to submit a sham credit bid instead of paying for the home.

Let us help you plan your Bankruptcy petition, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.
Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations. Presenters: Attorney and Expert Neil Garfield, Forensic Auditor Dan Edstrom, Attorney Charles Marshall and and Private Investigator Bill Paatalo. The webinar and materials are all downloadable.
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 New Florida Law Traps Homeowners Who File for Bankruptcy Protection

So instead of getting protection from creditors, a Petitioner for Bankruptcy Relief gets the opposite -screwed out of meritorious defenses. This is what happens when nobody is watching and we keep voting for people who will vote or sign for any legislation against the homeowners and for the banks.

This is a law of evidence and until challenged, ruled unconstitutional or invalid, it MUST be followed by judges unless the judge in a foreclosure case rules the new Florida law is invalid. Good luck with that. Not likely.

PRACTICE POINTER: I have often seen Proofs of Claim (and exhibits attached thereto) filed for parties claiming to be creditors that differ materially from the filings in the court where the foreclosure is being heard. Those too could be admissions under existing rules of evidence. POCs are generally sworn documents.

And also keep in mind that if a creditor doesn’t file a timely proof of claim the debtor can file one for the creditor which can say almost anything. If your schedules don’t list a creditor with a secured interest and instead show that you don’t admit this party has that status many people have found that there is no admission that an be used in other courts.

===========================

702.12 Actions in foreclosure.— 19

(1)(a) A lienholder, in an action to foreclose a mortgage, 20 may submit any document the defendant filed under penalty of 21 perjury in the defendant’s bankruptcy case for use as an 22 admission by the defendant. 23

(b) A rebuttable presumption that the defendant has waived 24 any defense to the foreclosure is created if a lienholder 25 submits documents filed in the defendant’s bankruptcy case 26 which: 27

1. Evidence the defendant’s intention to surrender to the 28 lienholder the property that is the subject of the foreclosure; 29

2. Have not been withdrawn by the defendant; and ENROLLED 2018 Legislature SB 220 2018220er Page 2 of 2 CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. 30

3. Show that a final order has been entered in the 31 defendant’s bankruptcy case which discharges the defendant’s 32 debts or confirms the defendant’s repayment plan that provides 33 for the surrender of the property. 34

(2) Pursuant to s. 90.203, a court shall take judicial 35 notice of an order entered in a bankruptcy case upon the request 36 of a lienholder. 37

(3) This section does not preclude the defendant in a 38 foreclosure action from raising a defense based upon the 39 lienholder’s action or inaction subsequent to the filing of the 40 document filed in the bankruptcy case which evidenced the 41 defendant’s intention to surrender the mortgaged property to the 42 lienholder. 43

(4) This section applies to any foreclosure action filed on 44 or after October 1, 2018. 45 Section 2. This act shall take effect October 1, 2018.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trustee v Active Trustee US Bank Fails to show or even attempt to show it is an active trustee

CASE DISMISSED,WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. US BANK DECLINED TO AMEND. CASE DISMISSED.

Even where there is a clerk’s default “The burden is on the plaintiff to establish its entitlement to recovery.” Bravado Int’l, 655 F. Supp. 2d at 189.

Here is an example of how lawyers purport to represent US Bank when in fact they are creating the illusion that they represent a trust and in reality they are representing a subservicer who is receiving orders from a master servicer of a nonexistent trust. As Trustee of the nonexistent trust USB had no active role in the nonexistent trust. As the inactive Trustee for a nonexistent Trust, no right, title or interest in the debts of homeowners were within any scope of authority of any servicer, subservicer or master servicer. Each foreclosure is a farce based upon assumptions and presumptions that are exactly opposite to the truth.

Given the opportunity to amend the complaint, lawyers for USB chose not to amend — because they could not plead nor prove the required elements of an active trustee. Because of that USB lacked standing to bring the action except as agent for an active trust or on behalf of the trust beneficiaries. But where the certificates show that the certificate holders do NOT have any interest in a mortgage or note (true in about 70% of all cases), then they too lack of standing. And if the Trust is not an active Trust owning the debt, note or mortgage then it too lacks standing.

Let us draft your motions and do the research necessary to draw the attention of the court to the fraud taking place under their noses. 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 Memorandum and Order – USBank Trust NA as Trustee for LSF9 MPT v Monroe

See Judgment – USB Trust for LSF9 v Monroe –

While this case discusses diversity and other issues concerning US Bank “as trustee” the reasoning and ruling clearly expose the truth about pleading irregularities by attorneys who purport to represent US Bank or a REMIC Trust.

A debt is an asset to anyone who owns it. Industry practice requires that for transfer of ownership, there must be an agreement or other document providing warranty of title, confirmation of the existence and ownership of the debt and proof of authority of the person executing the document. Go into any bank and try to borrow money using a note as collateral. The bank will require, at a minimum, that the debt be confirmed (usually by the purported debtor) and that each party in the chain show proof of purchase.

Without consideration, the assignment of mortgage or endorsement of the note is just a piece of paper.

When there is an assertion of ownership of the loan, what the banks and so-called servicers are actually saying is that they own the paper (note and mortgage) not the debt. In the past this was a distinction without a difference. In the era of patently f false claims of securitization, the debt was split off from the paper. The owner of the debt were without knowledge that their money was not under Trust management nor that their money was being used to originate or acquire loans without their knowledge.

The securitization sting is accomplished because the owners of the debt (the investors who sourced the funds) are unaware of the fact that the certificate they are holding is merely a promise to pay from a nonexistent trust that never was utilized to acquire the debts and whose ownership of the paper is strictly temporary in order to foreclose.

The failure to make that distinction between the real debt and the fake paper is the principal reason why so many people lose their homes to interlopers who have no interest in the loan but who profit from the sale of the home because a judgment was entered in favor of them allowing them to conduct a foreclosure sale. 

This case also sets forth universally accepted legal doctrine even where there is a clerk’s default entered against the homeowner. The Judge cannot enter a judgment for an alleged debt without proving the debt — even if the homeowner doesn’t show up.

“When a default is entered, the defendant is deemed to have admitted all of the well- pleaded factual allegations in the complaint pertaining to liability.” Bravado Int’l Grp. Merch. Servs., Inc. v. Ninna, Inc., 655 F. Supp. 2d 177, 188 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (citing Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty Corp., 973 F.2d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 1992)). “While a default judgment constitutes an admission of liability, the quantum of damages remains to be established by proof unless the amount is liquidated or susceptible of mathematical computation.” Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F.2d 702, 707 (2d Cir. 1974); accord, e.g., Bravado Int’l, 655 F. Supp. 2d at 190. “[E]ven upon default, a court may not rubber-stamp the non-defaulting party’s damages calculation, but rather must ensure that there is a basis for the damages that are sought.” United States v. Hill, No. 12-CV-1413, 2013 WL 474535, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2013)

“The burden is on the plaintiff to establish its entitlement to recovery.” Bravado Int’l, 655 F. Supp. 2d at 189.

 

Banks Fighting Subpoenas From FHFA Over Access to Loan Files

Whilst researching something else I ran across the following article first published in 2010. Upon reading it, it bears repeating.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
 
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

WHAT IF THE LOANS WERE NOT ACTUALLY SECURITIZED?

In a nutshell this is it. The Banks are fighting the subpoenas because if there is actually an audit of the “content” of the pools, they are screwed across the board.

My analysis of dozens of pools has led me to several counter-intuitive but unavoidable factual conclusions. I am certain the following is correct as to all residential securitized loans with very few (2-4%) exceptions:

  1. Most of the pools no longer exist.
  2. The MBS sold to investors and insured by AIG and the purchase and sale of credit default swaps were all premised on a general description of the content of the pool rather than a detailed description with the individual loans attached on a list.
  3. Each Prospectus if it carried any spreadsheet listing loans, contained a caveat that the attached list was by example only and not the real loans.
  4. Each distribution report contained a caveat that the parties who created it and the parties who delivered it did not guarantee either authenticity or reliability of the report. They even had specific admonitions regarding the content of the distribution report.
  5. NO LOAN ACTUALLY MADE IT INTO ANY POOL. The evidence is clear: nothing was done to assign, indorse or deliver the note to the investors directly or indirectly until a case went into litigation AND a hearing was scheduled. By that time the cutoff date had been breached and the loan was non-performing by their own allegation and therefore was not acceptable into the pool.
  6. AT ALL TIMES LEGAL TITLE TO THE PROPERTY WAS MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNER EVEN AFTER FORECLOSURE AND SALE. The actual creditor who submitted a credit bid was not the creditor. The sale is either void or voidable.
  7. AT ALL TIMES LEGAL TITLE TO THE LOAN WAS MAINTAINED BY THE ORIGINATING “LENDER”. Since there was no assignment, indorsement or delivery that could be recognized at law or in fact, the originating lender still owns the loan legally BUT….
  8. AT ALL TIMES THE OBLIGATION WAS BOTH CREATED AND EXTINGUISHED AT, OR CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE CLOSING OF THE LOAN. Since the originating lender was in fact not the source of funds, and did not book the transaction as a loan on their balance sheet (in most cases), the naming of the originating lender as the Lender and payee on the note, both created a LEGAL obligation from the borrower to the Lender and at the same time, the LEGAL obligation was extinguished because the LEGAL Lender of record was paid in full plus exorbitant fees for pretending to be an actual lender.
  9. Since the Legal obligation was both created and extinguished contemporaneously with each other, any remaining obligation to any OTHER party became unsecured since the security instrument (mortgage or deed of trust) refers only to the promissory note executed by the borrower.
  10. At the time of closing, the investor-lenders were the real parties in interest as lenders, but they were not disclosed nor were the fees of the various intermediaries who brought the investor-lender money and the borrower’s loan together.
  11. ALL INVESTOR-LENDERS RECEIVED THE EQUIVALENT OF A BOND — A PROMISE TO PAY ISSUED BY A PARTY OTHER THAN THE BORROWER, PREMISED UPON THE PAYMENT OR RECEIVABLES GENERATED FROM BORROWER PAYMENTS, CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS, CREDIT ENHANCEMENTS, AND THIRD PARTY INSURANCE.
  12. Nearly ALL investor-lenders have been paid sums of money to satisfy the promise to pay contained in the bond. These payments always exceeded the borrowers payments and in many cases paid the obligation in full WITHOUT SUBROGATION.
  13. NO LOAN IS IN ACTUAL DEFAULT OR DELINQUENCY. Since payments must first be applied to outstanding payments due, payments received by investor-lenders or their agents from third party sources are allocable to each individual loan and therefore cure the alleged default. A Borrower’s Non-payment is not a default since no payment is due.
  14. ALL NOTICES OF DEFAULT ARE DEFECTIVE: The amount stated, the creditor, and other material misstatements invalidate the effectiveness of such a notice.
  15. NO CREDIT BID AT AUCTION WAS MADE BY A CREDITOR. Hence the sale is void or voidable.
  16. ANY BALANCE DUE FROM THE BORROWER IS SUBJECT TO DEDUCTIONS FOR THIRD PARTY PAYMENTS.
  17. ANY BALANCE DUE FROM THE BORROWER IS SUBJECT TO AN EQUITABLE CLAIM FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT THAT IS UNSECURED.
  18. ANY BALANCE DUE FROM THE BORROWER IS SUBJECT TO AN EQUITABLE CLAIM FOR A LIEN TO REFLECT THE INTENTION OF THE INVESTOR-LENDER AND THE INTENTION OF THE BORROWER.  Both the investor-lender and the borrower intended to complete a loan transaction wherein the home was used to collateralize the amount due. The legal satisfaction of the originating lender is not a deduction from the equitable satisfaction of the investor-lender. THUS THE PARTIES SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ARE SUBJECT TO THE LEGAL DEFENSE OF PAYMENT AT CLOSING BUT THE INVESTOR-LENDERS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THAT DEFENSE.
  19. The investor-lenders ALSO have a claim for damages against the investment banks and the string of intermediaries that caused loans to be originated that did not meet the description contained in the prospectus.
  20. Any claim by investor-lenders may be subject to legal and equitable defenses, offsets and counterclaims from the borrower.
  21. The current modification context in which the securitization intermediaries are involved in settlement of outstanding mortgages is allowing those intermediaries to make even more money at the expense of the investor-lenders.
  22. The failure of courts to recognize that they must apply the rule of law results not only in the foreclosure of the property, but the foreclosure of the borrower’s ability to negotiate a settlement with an undisclosed equitable creditor, or with the legal owner of the loan in the property records.

Loan File Issue Brought to Forefront By FHFA Subpoena
Posted on July 14, 2010 by Foreclosureblues
Wednesday, July 14, 2010

foreclosureblues.wordpress.com

Editor’s Note….Even  U.S. Government Agencies have difficulty getting
discovery, lol…This is another excellent post from attorney Isaac
Gradman, who has the blog here…http://subprimeshakeout.blogspot.com.
He has a real perspective on the legal aspect of the big picture, and
is willing to post publicly about it.  Although one may wonder how
these matters may effect them individually, my point is that every day
that goes by is another day working in favor of those who stick it out
and fight for what is right.

Loan File Issue Brought to Forefront By FHFA Subpoena

The battle being waged by bondholders over access to the loan files
underlying their investments was brought into the national spotlight
earlier this week, when the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), the
regulator in charge of overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, issued
64 subpoenas seeking documents related to the mortgage-backed
securities (MBS) in which Freddie and Fannie had invested.
The FHFA
has been in charge of overseeing Freddie and Fannie since they were
placed into conservatorship in 2008.

Freddie and Fannie are two of the largest investors in privately
issued bonds–those secured by subprime and Alt-A loans that were often
originated by the mortgage arms of Wall St. firms and then packaged
and sold by those same firms to investors–and held nearly $255 billion
of these securities as of the end of May. The FHFA said Monday that it
is seeking to determine whether issuers of these so-called “private
label” MBS misled Freddie and Fannie into making the investments,
which have performed abysmally so far, and are expected to result in
another $46 billion in unrealized losses to the Government Sponsored
Entities (GSE).

Though the FHFA has not disclosed the targets of its subpoenas, the
top issuers of private label MBS include familiar names such as
Countrywide and Merrill Lynch (now part of BofA), Bear Stearns and
Washington Mutual (now part of JP Morgan Chase), Deutsche Bank and
Morgan Stanley. David Reilly of the Wall Street Journal has written an
article urging banks to come forward and disclose whether they have
received subpoenas from the FHFA, but I’m not holding my breath.

The FHFA issued a press release on Monday regarding the subpoenas
(available here). The statement I found most interesting in the
release discusses that, before and after conservatorship, the GSEs had
been attempting to acquire loan files to assess their rights and
determine whether there were misrepresentations and/or breaches of
representations and warranties by the issuers of the private label
MBS, but that, “difficulty in obtaining the loan documents has
presented a challenge to the [GSEs’] efforts. FHFA has therefore
issued these subpoenas for various loan files and transaction
documents pertaining to loans securing the [private label MBS] to
trustees and servicers controlling or holding that documentation.”

The FHFA’s Acting Director, Edward DeMarco, is then quoted as saying
““FHFA is taking this action consistent with our responsibilities as
Conservator of each Enterprise. By obtaining these documents we can
assess whether contractual violations or other breaches have taken
place leading to losses for the Enterprises and thus taxpayers. If so,
we will then make decisions regarding appropriate actions.” Sounds
like these subpoenas are just the precursor to additional legal
action.

The fact that servicers and trustees have been stonewalling even these

powerful agencies on loan files should come as no surprise based on

the legal battles private investors have had to wage thus far to force

banks to produce these documents. And yet, I’m still amazed by the

bald intransigence displayed by these financial institutions. After

all, they generally have clear contractual obligations requiring them

to give investors access to the files (which describe the very assets

backing the securities), not to mention the implicit discovery rights

these private institutions would have should the dispute wind up in

court, as it has in MBIA v. Countrywide and scores of other investor

suits.

At this point, it should be clear to everyone–servicers and investors
alike–that the loan files will have to be produced eventually, so the
only purpose I can fathom for the banks’ obduracy is delay. The loan
files should, as I’ve said in the past, reveal the depths of mortgage
originator depravity, demonstrating convincingly that the loans never
should have been issued in the first place. This, in turn, will force
banks to immediately reserve for potential losses associated with
buying back these defective mortgages. Perhaps banks are hoping that
they can ward off this inevitability long enough to spread their
losses out over several years, thereby weathering the storm caused (in
part) by their irresponsible lending practices. But certainly the
FHFA’s announcement will make that more difficult, as the FHFA’s
inherent authority to subpoena these documents (stemming from the
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008) should compel disclosure
without the need for litigation, and potentially provide sufficient
evidence of repurchase obligations to compel the banks to reserve
right away. For more on this issue, see the fascinating recent guest
post by Manal Mehta on The Subprime Shakeout regarding the SEC’s
investigation into banks’ processes for allocating loss reserves.

Meanwhile, the investor lawsuits continue to rain down on banks, with
suits by the Charles Schwab Corp. against Merrill Lynch and UBS, by
the Oregon Public Employee Retirement Fund against Countrywide, and by
Cambridge Place Investment Management against Goldman Sachs, Citigroup
and dozens of other banks and brokerages being announced this week. If
the congealing investor syndicate was looking for political cover
before staging a full frontal attack on banks, this should provide
ample protection. Much more to follow on these and other developments
in the coming days…
Technorati Links • Save to del.icio.us • Digg This! • Stumble It!

Posted by Isaac Gradman at 3:46 PM

%d bloggers like this: