“Boarding Loans:” Centralized “Processing” at LPS (Black Knight)

It’s complicated. But as this article proudly states, Black Knight is a leading “fintech” company, meaning that it handles the technology and software for “servicing” loans in default. This is the same company that, through DOCX literally published a menu of prices for fabrication and robosigning documents several years back.

My point has been that based upon my investigations, there is no loan boarding. It is a complete fiction. This is hub and spoke management. The hub is Black Knight. “Boarding” actually consists of changing the user name and password, and perhaps not even that. So discovery should include inquiries as to whether Black Knight (or others like it) are the ones involved in the so-called transfer of data.

Consider this quote from the article: “MSP is a comprehensive, end-to-end system that encompasses all aspects of servicing – from loan boarding to default – for first mortgages and home equity loans.” (e.s.)

GO TO LENDINGLIES to order forms and services. Our forensic report is called “TERA“— “Title and Encumbrance Report and Analysis.” I personally review each of them for edits and comments before they are released.

Let us help you plan your answers, affirmative defenses, 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 audio seminar now — Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations.

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

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

see Boarding on Home Point Financial and Black Knight

Among the names you should be digging for is “LoanSphere.” Check this out

In addition to MSP, Home Point Financial also implemented:

  • LoanSphere Bankruptcy, which assists servicers’ management of the bankruptcy process by using workflow and servicer-defined rules to automate bankruptcy-related tasks;
  • LoanSphere Foreclosure, which uses workflow and automated, servicer-defined rules to help servicers with the foreclosure process; and
  • LoanSphere Invoicing, a web-based invoice management solution that consolidates invoice process tasks – from bill presentment and processing to post-payment activities.

They are hiding in plain sight comfortable in the knowledge that practically nobody will understand what they are really doing. This is “servicing” for the servicers. Not for the trust, not for the investors, not for the beneficiaries (if there are any), not for the obligee of the debt owed by the homeowner, not for anyone except themselves.

The naming of a trust as beneficiary under a deed of trust or mortgagee under a mortgage is in actuality the underwriter of RMBS doing business as the name of the trust, — which is a name of a presumed entity that in fact does not exist. In fact no transaction in the name of the trust occurred in which the trust paid money for any debt, note or mortgage. Thus no proceeds from the foreclosure go to the trust. Just ask.

The changing of servicers is merely a game to set up more layers and more curtains with the goal of increasing opacity. In actuality the servicers are merely pretenders acting under orders of the underwriter for the sale of fake bonds and promises issued by a “Trust” that neither exists nor receives the proceeds of sale of securities issued in its name.

Practice Hint — the issue is always legal standing: QUESTION FOR CROSS EXAMINATION: Who will receive the proceeds of liquidation of the property after foreclosure sale? HINT: IT CAN’T BE THE TRUST BECAUSE IT DOESN’T EVEN HAVE BANK ACCOUNT. Will the trust receive the proceeds? Will the beneficiaries receive the proceeds? Will the Trustee receive the proceeds? Will the Master Servicer receive the proceeds? How will the trust or the beneficiaries receive any money from the proceeds of liquidation of the property?

Ocwen Boarding Process Was Shot Down Last Year

As foreclosure defense lawyers have been saying for years, the Ocwen Boarding process is a sham. “This boarding process is a legal fiction, and it means something different to every entity,” Butchko ruled from the bench during a March 17 hearing.

Ocwen does not verify any of the data. It downloads it and then “calls it a day.”

“I have done this investigation for a long time,” he said, noting, “The appellate courts are going under this presumption that there is some type of meaningful auditing and verification.” But Jacobs maintained, “You just heard it from a lawyer who knows how to properly phrase the questions that she’s basically testifying to all — all of this is still hearsay.

”Butchko granted an involuntary dismissal in HSBC Bank USA’s suit against Miami homeowner Joseph Buset, whose loan was initially serviced by Litton Loan Servicing LP, which Ocwen acquired in 2011.

We can help evaluate your options!
Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or info@lendinglies.com.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave a message or make payments.
OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!
https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1502204714426
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

See Home Foreclosure Fails on OCwen Servicing Records

Bruce Jacobs, a Foreclosure defense lawyer won this case. It was in 2016 and was, as usual, under-reported. The case hinged on the prior records of Litton Loan Servicing that Ocwen had acquired. The robo-witness could only testify that Ocwen employees had matched fields and columns on the payment history and had done nothing else. Hence verification was nonexistent.

[Judge] Butchko had to decide how to treat loan documents that became part of Ocwen’s business records but remained subject to hearsay objections unless the company could show it independently verified the data after transferring the loans. She considered evidence on Ocwen’s boarding process — the procedure by which financial services companies transfer account data from one lenders’ management system to another after trading loan portfolios.

Witnesses for lenders in foreclosure cases must show they did independent fact-checking to qualify their files as business records and not hearsay.

All records in  digital or hard copy are hearsay by definition. The only issue is whether a proper foundation has been offered by the robo-witness to claim that the “documents” qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule and that therefore they should be admitted into evidence. This case on Ocwen clearly shows that the testimony by dozens of Ocwen robo-witnesses has been false.

Based upon information I have received from credible sources I think the problem is worse than that. My sources tell me that the records are not uploaded or transferred. The only thing that happens is that the user name and password is changed. That is why the records of the prior servicer are NEVER introduced. It may be that Ocwen changes the fields and columns to make it appear that the records have been processed, but based upon my information the Ocwen records are often taken from the same database. That being the case, the robo-witness should have been an employee of the former Litton servicing.

 

 

Miami Judge: No Transaction=Unclean Hands. Judgment for Homeowner with Sanctions.

It’s time to sit up and take notice. Judges are turning the corner and getting pretty angry about what passed before as evidence. In April this order seemed like a shot in the dark. But now, we are seeing more and more judges actually study the chain of alleged transactions relied upon those who seek forced sale of a residence. The motivation of those seeking foreclosure is gradually being revealed this year. Not surprisingly they are not in the least bit interested in the property or the loan. They want a foreclosure judgment because THAT is what has value for them — getting the judge to unwittingly ratify all the preceding illegal acts and frauds perpetrated on the borrower and the courts. Once again our friends at Ocwen are named as the culprits, but this judge goes further when she says

‘This Court finds the AOM [assignment of mortgage] created in 2012 does not document a transaction that occurred in 2005, as Plaintiff suggests. The transaction described in the AOM never legally occurred.There was never a transaction between MERS and/or Freemont Investment and Loan that sold Defendant’s loan directly to the Trust. Not in 2012, not in 2005, not ever.’ (e.s.)

see ocwen-order

HSBC v Buset, Case # 12-38811 CA 01 Decided 4/26/16 Hon Beatrice Butchko

For about 10 years now I have endured taunts from people representing the banks or themselves citing case after case saying I was wrong in my legal analysis. I persisted because I knew I was right. The reality of a transaction is far more important than the self serving paperwork that parties use to justify their illegal actions  — the last decade notwithstanding. If there was no purchase of the loan then the assignee received nothing.

But more important than that is something that Judge Butchko seemed to pick up on. She asks the simple question: why would Ocwen violate a mandatory discovery order that would prove the Plaintiff’s case? Instead they tried to plow through without the reality of a single transaction in which a loan was made, purchased or sold.

If the alleged loan was not sold then why were there any papers showing a transfer of the “loan.” And if each party in the chain was paying nothing to the party before them, why was the assignor signing an assignment without getting paid for it. And if that is true for all the assignments and endorsements then was the originator a lender? If the originator received nothing in a purchase transaction for the alleged loan, the only logical conclusion is that there was no loan by the originator and there might have been no loan at all.

With that conclusion why would a party with no money in the “game” be suing for foreclosure? The answer must be completely separate from the loan because that is obviously of no consequence to those participating parties that were getting fees for executing documents that pretended that there was a purchase and sale of the debt. The answer is that foreclosure is the ONLY way they could cover their tracks in the false sales of mortgage bonds issued by an empty non-operating trust. If you look at decisions like this and thousands of other cases the conclusion is inescapable — a foreclosure judgment is the first and only legal document is the entire chain.

Here are some quotes

The Court takes judicial notice that on July 25, 2008, Freemont Investment and Loan (“Freemont”) entered into a voluntary liquidation and closing which did not result in a new institution. https://www5.fdic.gov/idasp/confirmation_outside.asp?inCert1=25653. As such, the status of MERS as nominee for Freemont ended when Freemont closed on July 25, 2008, which renders the AOM created in 2012 void ab initio.

This endorsement is contrary to the unequivocal terms of the PSA, in evidence over Plaintiff’s objection, which required all intervening endorsements be affixed to the face of the note because there was ample room for endorsements on the face of the note. There is also no evidence the endorsement was affixed before the originator went out of business in 2008.

The Court also finds unclean hands in Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Discovery Order of April 27, 2015.

17. In that order, the Court overruled plaintiff’s blanket objections and found no basis for Plaintiff to object to providing any discovery under Fla. Stat. 655.059.

18. The Court then ordered Plaintiff to provide (1) the final executed documents evidencing the chain of title for the subject loan; (2) all records of any custodian related to the chain of custody of the note; and (3) all records showing how and when the specific endorsement on the promissory note was created.

The Court fails to comprehend why Plaintiff would not fully comply with the Court’s Order compelling discovery when the evidence sought by the Defendant would actually assist Plaintiff in establishing the missing link in the chain of ownership in the endorsement and assignment of mortgage.

The Court hereby enters an Order to Show Cause why Plaintiff should not be Sanctioned for violating the Court’s order on April 27, 2015, after representing that it fully complied on or before January 14, 2016.

23. Moreover, the Court hereby enters an Order to Show Cause why Plaintiff should not be sanctioned for the reasons set forth in Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions Under the Court’s Inherent Contempt Powers for Fraud Upon the Court filed on March 16, 2016.

24. Defendant is hereby ordered to conduct further discovery in support of these orders to show cause and set an evidentiary hearing on them at the Court’s earliest convenience.

Ms. Keeley testified the loan boarding process involved two steps. First, Ocwen confirmed that the categories for each column of financial data from the prior servicer matched or corresponded to the same name Ocwen used for that same column of financial data. Second, Ocwen confirmed the figures from the prior servicer transferred over such that the top figure from Litton became the bottom figure for Ocwen. The court notes that when testifying about Ocwen’s boarding process, Ms. Keeley appeared to be merely repeating a mantra or parroting what she learned the so called boarding process is without being able to give specific details regarding the procedure itself. 1 Her demeanor at trial although professional, was hesitant and lacking in confidence in this court’s estimation as the trier of fact.

To support the court’s concern regarding the lack of foundation of the so called boarded records in this case, the Court takes Judicial Notice of the Consent Order entered in the matter of Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC by the New York State Department of Financial Services dated December 22, 2014. This Consent Order documents Ocwen’s practice of backdating business records that it failed to fully resolve “more than a year after its initial discovery.”

1 This Court estimates that it has presided over hundreds of foreclosure bench trials since being assigned to the Civil Division in 2011. The court has accordingly heard hundreds of bank witnesses testify regarding their company’s boarding process and has accepted thousands of documents into evidence pursuant to same. The boarding process and training of personnel regarding the boarding of documents varies greatly from one institution to another.

the Court noted that the first two default letters in the inch thick stack which Plaintiff sought to admit into evidence were inexplicably dated a week apart and had a $1,900 difference in the amount required to cure the default.

the admission of the default letters mailed by an outside entity not testifying in court creates a double hearsay problem as there is no evidence of a boarding process of that third party vendor’s mailing practices and procedures. Nor did the Ocwen representative testify that she had received training regarding the procedure used by the third party vendor in mailing the default letters.

Both the endorsement and the assignment omit the Depositor, Freemont Mortgage Securities Corporation, from the transaction which constitutes a fatal break in the chain of title.

The Court gives great weight as the trier of fact to the testimony of Defendant’s

expert witness, Kathleen Cully. Ms. Cully is a Yale Law School graduate that worked her entire career in structured finance transactions since 1985. She was extremely well versed in the Uniform Commercial Code. Among many other tasks and accomplishments, Ms. Cully testified that she led the Citigroup team that created the first pooling and servicing agreement ever. She led Citigroup’s Global Securitization strategy. The Court finds Ms. Cully eminently qualified as an expert witness in the area of securitized transactions and their interplay with the Model Uniform Commercial Code.

The Court applies Ms. Cully’s reasoned analysis as it relates to the note and mortgage for the subject loan and to Article 3 of Florida’s Uniform Commercial Code. However, it is axiomatic that all promissory notes are not automatically negotiable instruments.

This Court finds that the Note is non-negotiable as the amounts payable under the Complaint include amounts not described in the Note and as the Note does not contain an unconditional promise to pay.

66. The promise is not unconditional because the Note is subject to and/or governed by another writing, namely the Mortgage. Moreover, rights or obligations with respect to the Note itself—as opposed to the collateral, prepayment or acceleration—are stated in another writing, namely the Mortgage.

The Court grants Defendants’ Motion for Involuntary Dismissal and enters judgment in favor of the Defendants who shall go forth without day.

83. The Court reserves jurisdiction to award prevailing party attorney’s fees and to impose sanctions against Plaintiff under the inherent contempt powers of the court for fraud on the court, and such other orders necessary to fully adjudicate these issues.

84. Plaintiff is ordered to produce a corporate representative with most knowledge regarding its efforts to comply with the discovery order dated April 27, 2015, for deposition at the offices of Defendant’s counsel within 15 days from the entry of this order.

 

%d bloggers like this: