Fannie and Freddie Unloading Bogus “Mortgage” Bonds

Standard Operating Procedure: Create more bogus paper on top of piles of old bogus paper and you contribute to the illusion that any of it is real. The “business model” still leaves out the basic fallacy: that most loans were never actually securitized into the trusts that are claiming them. Hence the at the base of this pyramid, is an MBS issued by an entity without any assets in cash, property or loans.

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.
—————-

see http://blogs.barrons.com/incomeinvesting/2014/06/30/government-support-for-gse-mortgage-transfer-securities-unrealistic-fitch/

The actual goal here is to spread the risk so wide that the impact is reduced when it is finally conceded that the original MBS had no value and every successor synthetic derivative is just as worthless as the one before it.

At ground level, this creates a dichotomy. First the act of a Government Sponsored Entity (GSE) engaging in a “re-REMIC” transfer adds to the illusion that the issuing trust ever acquired the loan in the first place. But second, it corroborates the finding by me, Adam Levitin and others who know and have studied the situation: the foreclosure based upon claims from alleged REMIC Trusts are false claims.

If the original MBS had real value because it was issued by a real REMIC Trust, the process described as “re-REMIC” would not be necessary. Hedge products would be sufficient to cover the changing risk from alleged defaults on loans that were legitimately made by originators. The fact is that the “loans” did not produce loan contracts because one party was owed the debt while another party was named on the bogus note.

And THAT corroborates the experience of millions of homeowners who attempted to learn about the fictitious financial transaction in which “successors” to the “originator” paid nothing for the “transfer” of the loan because it could not be sold by the preceding party who had no ownership.

New York Judge Orders Release of Hidden Documents

This is just the beginning of what I have been predicting for 10 years. When the public finds out that the government itself is addicted to the false scheme of securitization — and that this has led to abandonment of policies and rules of law that have continued to depress the U.S. economy — the “movements” of Sanders and Trump will look like garden parties.

The mortgage loan schedules, assignments, and endorsements are all pure fabrication, illusion smoke and mirrors. This is why 10 years ago the banks were denying the existence of the trusts. They created a void between the investors and their money on the one hand and the homeowners and their homes on the other. They stepped into the void acting as principals when they were in fact rogue intermediaries.

“In the discovery battle in these suits, the government’s pleas for secrecy were so extreme that it asked for, and received, “attorneys’ eyes only” status for the documents in question. This meant that not even the plaintiffs were entitled to see the raw papers. This designation is usually reserved for cases involving national security or proprietary business secrets.”

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

—————-
*
Matt Taibbi is one of the few journalists in existence who has actually taken the time to gain some real understanding of the financial crisis that was revealed in 2008-2009. I would only add that this is like the tobacco litigation where the states became addicted to revenue from the tobacco companies in order to pay their “fines.”
 *
There are many reasons why the Bush and Obama administrations moved to “save” the TBTF banks at the expense of the rule of law and on the back of homeowners who were lured into unworkable debt masquerading as mortgage debt.
 *
And the outcome of this leadership by example is that the mortgages are treated as valid encumbrances, the mortgage bonds are treated as viable assets on the balance sheets of banks, and the one source that could save the economy — consumers — is being cutoff from any form of relief.
 *
This is like the Fortune 500 companies who have decided that their stock is their product, and the higher their stock price the better they are doing — even if it means that they artificially inflating their stock price by purchasing the stock at high levels with company funds. It’s like oil companies who continue to value the oil in the ground as though they were going to suck it all out and make a profit when we all know that oil is largely going to be left intact and not subject to sale or use. The bubble is here and this decision by a federal judge forces the hand of the Obama administration to lift the veil of secrecy on the pact between the TBTF banks and the U.S. government.
 *
THE SIMPLE TRUTH: The “Trusts” were nothing but names on paper. And the paper allegedly issued by the “Trusts” was as worthless as the Trusts themselves. The investors advanced money under the belief that it would mean their money was going through a “pass-through” entity to be managed by the Trust; but the money never went to the trusts and the trusts never acquired any assets from any source, leaving the trusts at best “inchoate” and at worst nonexistent depending upon the state.
 *
The mortgage loan schedules, assignments, and endorsements are all pure fabrication, illusion smoke and mirrors. This is why 10 years ago the banks were denying the existence of the trusts.
 *
They created a void between the investors and their money on the one hand and the homeowners and their homes on the other. They stepped into the void acting as principals when they were in fact rogue intermediaries.
 *
And to cover their tracks they funded loans with money they stole from investors, thus stealing the money and the debt, while at the same time defrauding the borrower and the courts with false claims of ownership leading to the pinnacle of their scheme — a forced sale of property that in fact they had no interest in, based upon a loan that they never funded or acquired. Getting to that auction is the first legal document in the whole fabricated illegal chain of documentation — and it gives them the right to use that foreclosure sale as proof that everything that went before the sale was true and valid. It wasn’t.
 *
GET A CONSULT
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.

Problems with Lehman and Aurora

Lehman had nothing to do with the loan even at the beginning when the loan was funded, it acted as a conduit for investor funds that were being misappropriated, the loan was “sold” or “transferred” to a REMIC Trust, and the assets of Lehman were put into a bankruptcy estate as a matter of law.

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

—————-
I keep receiving the same question from multiple sources about the loans “originated” by Lehman, MERS involvement, and Aurora. Here is my short answer:
 *

Yes it means that technically the mortgage and note went in two different directions. BUT in nearly all courts of law the Judge overlooks this problem despite clear law to the contrary in Florida Statutes adopting the UCC.

The stamped endorsement at closing indicates that the loan was pre-sold to Lehman in an Assignment and Assumption Agreement (AAA)— which is basically a contract that violates public policy. It violates public policy because it withholds the name of the lender — a basic disclosure contained in the Truth in Lending Act in order to make certain that the borrower knows with whom he is expected to do business.

 *
Choice of lender is one of the fundamental requirements of TILA. For the past 20 years virtually everyone in the “lending chain” violated this basic principal of public policy and law. That includes originators, MERS, mortgage brokers, closing agents (to the extent they were actually aware of the switch), Trusts, Trustees, Master Servicers (were in most cases the underwriter of the nonexistent “Trust”) et al.
 *
The AAA also requires withholding the name of the conduit (Lehman). This means it was a table funded loan on steroids. That is ruled as a matter of law to be “predatory per se” by Reg Z.  It allows Lehman, as a conduit, to immediately receive “ownership” of the note and mortgage (or its designated nominee/agent MERS).
 *

Lehman was using funds from investors to fund the loan — a direct violation of (a) what they told investors, who thought their money was going into a trust for management and (b) what they told the court, was that they were the lender. In other words the funding of the loan is the point in time when Lehman converted (stole) the funds of the investors.

Knowing Lehman practices at the time, it is virtually certain that the loan was immediately subject to CLAIMS of securitization. The hidden problem is that the claims from the REMIC Trust were not true. The trust having never been funded, never purchased the loan.

*

The second hidden problem is that the Lehman bankruptcy would have put the loan into the bankruptcy estate. So regardless of whether the loan was already “sold” into the secondary market for securitization or “transferred” to a REMIC trust or it was in fact owned by Lehman after the bankruptcy, there can be no valid document or instrument executed by Lehman after that time (either the date of “closing” or the date of bankruptcy, 2008).

*

The reason is simple — Lehman had nothing to do with the loan even at the beginning when the loan was funded, it acted as a conduit for investor funds that were being misappropriated, the loan was “sold” or “transferred” to a REMIC Trust, and the assets of Lehman were put into a bankruptcy estate as a matter of law.

*

The problems are further compounded by the fact that the “servicer” (Aurora) now claims alternatively that it is either the owner or servicer of the loan or both. Aurora was basically a controlled entity of Lehman.

It is impossible to fund a trust that claims the loan because that “reporting” process was controlled by Lehman and then Aurora.

*

So they could say whatever they wanted to MERS and to the world. At one time there probably was a trust named as owner of the loan but that data has long since been erased unless it can be recovered from the MERS archives.

*

Now we have an emerging further complicating issue. Fannie claims it owns the loan, also a claim that is untrue like all the other claims. Fannie is not a lender. Fannie acts a guarantor or Master trustee of REMIC Trusts. It generally uses the mortgage bonds issued by the REMIC trust to “purchase” the loans. But those bonds were worthless because the Trust never received the proceeds of sale of the mortgage bonds to investors. Thus it had no ability to purchase loan because it had no money, business or other assets.

But in 2008-2009 the government funded the cash purchase of the loans by Fannie and Freddie while the Federal Reserve outright paid cash for the mortgage bonds, which they purchased from the banks.

The problem with that scenario is that the banks did not own the loans and did not own the bonds. Yet the banks were the “sellers.” So my conclusion is that the emergence of Fannie is just one more layer of confusion being added to an already convoluted scheme and the Judge will be looking for a way to “simplify” it thus raising the danger that the Judge will ignore the parts of the chain that are clearly broken.

Bottom Line: it was the investors funds that were used to fund loans — but only part of the investors funds went to loans. The rest went into the pocket of the underwriter (investment bank) as was recorded either as fees or “trading profits” from a trading desk that was performing nonexistent sales to nonexistent trusts of nonexistent loan contracts.

The essential legal problem is this: the investors involuntarily made loans without representation at closing. Hence no loan contract was ever formed to protect them. The parties in between were all acting as though the loan contract existed and reflected the intent of both the borrower and the “lender” investors.

The solution is for investors to fire the intermediaries and create their own and then approach the borrowers who in most cases would be happy to execute a real mortgage and note. This would fix the amount of damages to be recovered from the investment bankers. And it would stop the hemorrhaging of value from what should be (but isn’t) a secured asset. And of course it would end the foreclosure nightmare where those intermediaries are stealing both the debt and the property of others with whom thye have no contract.

GET A CONSULT!

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, MAKE A DONATION, leave message or make payments.

 

The Beginning or the End for Loan Servicer Ocwen?

By William Hudson
Ocwen Financial, one of the largest subprime mortgage servicers in America, has big problems. Analysts predict that Ocwen will be forced to file bankruptcy as the SEC opens up two more investigations into the loan servicers business practices while the stock goes into free-fall.

A further hurdle will befall homeowners if Ocwen files for bankruptcy protection because another shield is placed between the homeowners and the banks who are the culprits- but just happen to control all of the “loan” information. As Neil Garfield would say, “They have plenty of bodies to throw under the bus.” To date, homeowners and their attorneys in litigation have been frustrated by attempts to discover who the true creditor is especially when the servicer hides behind bankruptcy, mergers and receivership (Fannie and Freddie).

Ocwen reported a $247 million annual loss while revenues tumbled 17.5% last week at the same time the SEC is continuing to scrutinize their shoddy and abusive servicing practices. Despite the fact that Ocwen previously settled with multiple government regulators upon findings of fraudulent servicing practices, apparently it is business as usual for Ocwen as authorities continue to investigate their business practices- without administering any penalty with teeth or consequences.

Only a month ago, Ocwen settled with the SEC for misstating their 2013 and 2014 financial results and were fined a paltry $2 million dollar fine for poor internal controls and failing to disclose the financial conflicts of their former CEO Bill Erby. In 2014 alone, Ocwen would pay a $100 million civil monetary penalty to the New York Department of Financial Services for violations and non-compliance with a prior consent order with a regulator. Last year they paid an additional $2.5 million fine to the California Department of Business Oversight on their servicing practices that ultimately led to Ocwen being barred from acquiring new Mortgage Servicing Rights in the state of California. Predictably, although the Department of Business Oversight had threatened to revoke their mortgage license- and should have- they failed to do so.

On the upside for Ocwen, is that they will remain in the business of servicing Ginnie Mae loans and will also continue to originate and service new Fannie and Freddie loans. My advice would be to steer clear of GSE loans like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac if at all possible since it presents one more ‘layer’ to navigate if at a future time you suspect fraud may have been involved in your loan. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are quasi-governmental institutions that are immune to Freedom of Information Requests and federal transparency, while still benefiting from being private corporations. The GSE’s have a cushy little deal where they appear to exist outside of both governmental and corporate regulations.

Last year Ocwen demonstrated that they couldn’t effectively service government guaranteed loans, and was forced to sell $45 billion in mortgage servicing rights (MSRs) on loans originated by Fannie Mae to JPMorgan Chase. Ocwen was also forced to sell a total of $34.8 billion in MSR’s on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans to competitor Nationstar Mortgage in two separate deals to unwind servicing legacy agency loans. Although I could go on and on about the abusive servicing practices that have resulted in Ocwen being financially fined and forced to sell its servicing rights, let’s just say these issues are indicative of the regulatory and investor pressures the servicing giants are now facing- across the board. At present, bondholders have requested that Ocwen be removed from servicing 119 different residential mortgage backed securities trusts with more requesting removal weekly.

Last Monday Ocwen was notified that the SEC would launch a new SEC probe into its servicing operations. The SEC is investigating Ocwen’s use of collection agents by the company’s various mortgage loan servicers, a practice that Ocwen has argued is a standard practice across the servicing industry. President Ronald Faris commented that their practices and fees are considered standard and should be of no concern. Faris is correct in that Ocwen’s illegal practices of using forged and fraudulent documents presented to courts across the country in order to foreclose is standard practice among loan servicing agents. However, Faris is delusional if he believes these practices should be of no concern. To whom? The shareholder who has no idea the loans Ocwen services are owned by phantom entities with no standing to foreclose, or the homeowner who is subjected to predatory servicing and foreclosure tactics? If the government agencies would do their jobs- Ocwen would cease to exist tomorrow.

The SEC has opened an investigation into the fees and expenses the company charges in connection with its management of liquidating mortgage loans and real estate properties in different RMBS trusts. Unfortunately, Ocwen is not being investigating for violations against consumers, but only because investors have complained and when investors complain the regulators and government take notice. Groups of investors have a tendency to get better results when they go up against a large corporation and can retain the best representation that money can buy. A homeowner in a small town outside Des Moines with an attorney specializing in family law doesn’t pose much of a threat or incite the same action.

It is unusual for the SEC to investigate business practices. Typically the SEC will only investigate the integrity of financial statements. CEO Ronald Faris spoke on a conference call Monday evening and addressed the investigation. He said what all good CEO’s say to distance themselves from controversy, “I can’t really comment except to say that we feel confident that the fees that are part of the servicing business that are either assessed to borrowers or passed on to RMBS investors are – they’re monitored closely by master servicers and trustees and others. We’ve had various third parties look at them. We have a good sense as to what other servicers have done since we’ve acquired a lot of servicing portfolios and been able to see what industry practice has been. And we feel comfortable that our process is within industry practice. So, we can’t comment on what exactly a regulator may be looking for, but we do believe that our processes are appropriate.” Faris confirms that he is simply going along with industry “best practices”. Best practices that have been revealed to include falsifying affidavits and forging mortgage documents in order to create the illusion of having standing to foreclose.

In January, Ocwen announced that Phyillis R. Caldwell joined the Board of Directors. Caldwell previously served as Chief of the Homeownership Preservation Office at the U.S. Department of the Treasury where she was responsible for oversight of the U.S. housing market stabilization, economic recovery, and foreclosure prevention initiatives established through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Since Caldwell did such an outstanding job with TARP what could go wrong? Under TARP millions of TPP modification agreements were extended and revoked for no reason while the homeowner was in compliance with the terms of the agreement.

Upon announcing Ocwen’s director, the company issued a press release stating, “Phyllis’ character, deep experience in the housing and mortgage markets, and commitment to borrowers and communities makes her the right choice to move Ocwen forward and emerge as a stronger company with the highest standards in our industry.” Unfortunately, we know what commitment to borrowers and communities’ means for homeowners under Ocwen. It means that investors will be able to come in, purchase properties for pennies on the dollar and displace families while Ocwen alters legal instruments to give the illusion of standing and forecloses on properties. Becoming a stronger company refers to cashing in a few favors she has coming her way so Ocwen can escape extinction. Caldwell’s appointment is disturbing and it is obvious what type of ‘help’ she will provide to Ocwen (cronyism and assistance covering their fraud scheme).

Remember, Ocwen was issued a consent order from the CFPB in every state but Oklahoma last year that illustrated the “continued, systemic abuse of the American homeowner.” Ocwen was accused of “violating consumer financial laws at every stage of the mortgage servicing process,” according to CFPB Director Richard Cordray. However, under that settlement, Ocwen executives faced no criminal charges, did not pay the majority of penalties themselves, and were not forced to admit wrongdoing in the case.
Ocwen, like JPMorgan Chase, Citicorp, Bank of America and other bank servicers settled cases of mortgage servicing abuse in the National Morgan Settlement back in 2012 for 25 billion dollars. The banks paid a nominal fine, and transferred or sold their servicing operations to non-bank servicers like Ocwen.

As a non-bank servicer, Ocwen doesn’t own any of the loans. They merely service loans, collecting monthly payments and dealing with loan modifications and foreclosures, for investors who purchased them as part of mortgage-backed securities.  Ocwen makes the erroneous assumption that the loans they are servicing actually made it into the trusts they claim to. Ocwen has no way to verify if the note is where it is supposed to be but makes false assertions that it is simply because the bank “says so”.
Although Ocwen is not a bank, they have engaged in the exact same servicing practices as the big banks. Eric Mains who is suing CitiMortgage likes to call this game of passing around servicing rights while also claiming creditor rights, “Whack-a-Mole.” The entire servicing industry, by design, is about keeping the homeowner in the dark until they can properly execute the foreclosure action. Servicers change, account numbers change, customer service representatives provide account disinformation and banks routinely fail to comply with any statute meant to protect the homeowner from this type of exploitation and predation.

“Too often trouble began as soon as a loan transferred to Ocwen,” said CFPB Director Cordray when he announced the enforcement action last year. Ocwen was accused of charging borrowers more than stipulated in the mortgage contract; forcing homeowners to buy unnecessary insurance policies; charging borrowers unauthorized fees; providing inaccurate information to borrowers when questioned about excessive and unauthorized fees; lying about loan modification options; misplacing documents and ignoring or losing loan modification applications, deliberately causing homeowners to slip into foreclosure; illegally denying eligible borrowers loan modifications, and then lying to cover up their crimes. These activities result in foreclosures and a windfall of profits to the loan servicer who will then reap a free house, insurance proceeds and other undisclosed rewards granted for successfully foreclosing on a home. I wouldn’t be surprised if Ocwen had a Pirate of the Week award that includes a parking spot upfront near the CEO.

Finally, if Ocwen goes into bankruptcy, homeowners who have loans serviced by Ocwen will face further hardships attempting to unravel who their creditor is, if the loan was legitimately transferred, while being subjected to some unsavory servicing practices that appear to be designed to ensure the appearance of homeowner non-compliance. It is time that Ocwen ADMIT wrongdoing so that their executives will not be protected from legal consequences. Ocwen also needs to be forced to pay any penalties with their own money, not the investors. To date, Ocwen has only faced trivial administrative fines while foreclosing on thousands of homeowners under false pretenses, with fraudulent documents, by predatory means. Until the government regulators take real action- this is business as usual for the loan servicers.

 

 

MERS 2.0: CSP Another MERS for Securitization of Debt

For More information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

This article is not a substitute for a legal opinion on your case obtained from an attorney licensed in the jurisdiction in which your property or transaction is located. Get a lawyer.

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

see GMAC Exec Appointed CEO of CSS

see Common Securitization Platform

see Common Securitization Platform — Freddie First

We all know that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) has been pretty thoroughly discredited although there are still many judges whose attitude is “so what”, and the foreclosure goes forward anyway. MERS does not meet the statutory requirements to be a beneficiary under a deed of trust nor a mortgagee under a mortgage deed. It is a naked nominee, wearing none of the clothes required to be a lender, holder of the note or owner of the mortgage. And it even says so on its website, disclaiming any interest in any loan, debt, note or mortgage. It has been used extensively (an estimated 80 millions loans have been registered in the MERS system). Its purpose was to hide—-

(1) the real lender,  making virtually every loan a table  funded loan and therefore predatory per se (something which people have still not caught onto — until the Supreme Court says AGAIN, predatory per se means that it is against public policy, negating the right to obtain equitable relief [foreclosure]

(2) the real transactions of real money in the origination of loans and the acquisition of loan documents

(3) the real players in the lending process

(4) the real players in the collection process

(5) the real players in the foreclosure process

(6) theft from the investors

(7) theft from the borrowers

(8) fraud on the courts

Many knowledgeable judges, county recorders, legal analysts and title agents around the country have all come to the same conclusion: the use of MERS forever corrupted the public records systems for recording title and interests in real property. And yet those defective encumbrances remain in the public records as though MERS was real and the facts from the MERS platform were true. Clearing the title problems and compensating victims of foreclosure fraud enabled by MERS remains among the great challenges to all branches of government.

The problem for the banks is that if they fess up to the truth, the banks, their stockholders and anyone who relies upon them (i.e., the Federal government) will see their benefits go up in smoke. So they have been quietly seeking a way to cover the whole thing up and sweep it under the rug. Statutory changes were discarded because that would amount to admitting that something was wrong. So they hit upon the idea of institutionalizing the whole concept all over again — which will lead to yet another and bigger catastrophe than the one called the “Great Recession.”

It was obvious that if any of the largest banks were involved, alarm bells would have gone off all over the place. So they are using Fannie and Freddie, with a GMAC exec at the helm to start a “Common Securitization Platform” (CSP) that will not only enhance the illusion that prior fake securitizations were real, but also provide a quasi-governmental entity whose “business records” will seem more real than even the property records of any given county. It is a blatant usurpation of state powers with no more viability or validity than MERS. This is MERS 2.0. They will probably treat it as an administrative function of a quasi governmental agency entitled to the presumption of truth. Sounds like MERS, looks like MERS, smells like MERS, Walks like MERS …. must be a duck. [I said in 2008 in a 6 day marathon deposition of me as expert witness that they might just as well have put the name “Donald Duck” on the note and mortgage — since they were already using fictional characters.]

Bottom Line: They are institutionalizing prior acts of fraud against the taxpayers, the government (Federal, state and city), investors and borrowers and clearing the way for it continue unabated. The reason is clear: our political leaders from all political spectrums don’t have a clue about the real world of finance and they are scared to death by threats from bankers that if they go down, they will take the country down with them.

Where is Teddy Roosevelt (“Trust buster”) when you really need him?

CA Appelate Decision: Damage Claims Against OneWest Goes to Jury, Summary Judgment reversed

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

Sue Rose is my new administrative assistant. Danielle and Geordan do not work for livinglies or the Garfield firm. If you have placed an order which is unfulfilled please call the above numbers.

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

see CA Appeals OrderReversesMSJ

This case allows the jury to hear claims against OneWest for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, concealment, promissory estoppel, negligence, wrongful foreclosure, and violation of CA Business and Professional Code.

Here is an example of the obvious: a Judge takes no risk in denying a motion for summary judgment. It is only when the Judge grants summary judgment that there is a risk of reversal. With the current judicial climate changing in favor of borrowers, [including findings that the mortgage was absolutely void (invalid, non-perfected) where a sham nominee like MERS was used], Judges should take note that they are better off getting in front of the new trend and allow borrowers’ claims to be heard in a fair manner, observing the requirements of due process.

If the Banks collapse because they created 100 million invalid mortgages, that is not a problem for the Judge. And, as I have said many times here, there are 7,000 banks and credit unions that can take up whatever falls out of the mega banks as a result of investors and regulators realizing that the mortgages are void, the assets on bank balance sheets don’t exist or are far overvalued, and the liability section of the bank balance sheet is far understated as a result of damage claims like the one featured in this article.

As noted earlier on these pages, the threshold legal question has been reversed. The question now is what difference does it make if the borrower is in default if the foreclosing party had no right to foreclose?  The previous question that I heard hundreds of times from the Judges themselves was incorrect from the beginning. Their question was what difference does it make if the loan was securitized, as long as the borrower is in default? And that is where the dissenting justice in this case also got it wrong. He is still assuming that these loan transactions were in fact consummated as reflected in the alleged loan documents. The underlying assumption of the dissenting judge is obvious: that the loan contracts were fundamentally valid and whatever defects existed could be corrected before or even during foreclosure. NOT TRUE!

Here in this case is an example of how judges are now perceiving the entire loan transaction instead of just the claim of a default. And the result is that this California appellate court decided to let the case go to trial and allow a jury to hear the claims against OneWest, whose behavior was predatory from the start of when they acquired IndyMac business in 2008-2009.

The appellate court reversed the trial judge who had granted Summary Judgment for OneWest — a little plaything organized over a weekend by some of the richest people in the country. On a net basis they paid nothing and made a ton of money off of loss sharing and guarantee payments from the FDIC and and the GSE’s respectively. They also foreclosed on thousands of homes in cases where they had no interest in the loan and no right to foreclose, collect or do anything else with respect to the loan.

The hidden issue here is whether the Judge, having been reversed, will now allow the homeowner’s attorney to probe deep into the dealings of OneWest during discovery. I suspect that the trial judge will allow more liberal discovery after being reversed. And if that happens you might not never hear about this case again — as it joins the tens of thousands of cases that have been settled under seal of confidentiality. Essentially the strategy of the banks is that if they lose, they can always pay off the homeowner to keep the case from being publicized.

Fannie and Freddie Don’t Own Your Loan

The problem with the site whose link appears below is that it is not authoritative. But we can treat it as though it was authoritative. The principal point is that even where Fannie and Freddie have “purchased” a loan it was for the express purpose of resale into the secondary market the trusts. In most cases Fannie and Freddie served as master trustees, which means that the usual trustee arrangement applied to the underlying trusts in what they call the “secondary market.”
If they followed the usual plan, the banks committed fraud — they took the money but never gave it to the trust. And they issued bonds to themselves as street name nominee for investors (but in actuality as though they had themselves funded the trust) , with which the loans were passed on to Fannie or Freddie and then they”purchased” the loans (without consideration) but the bonds were worthless because the trust that issued them never got any money to do ANY deal.
In short Fannie and Freddie are nominees or conduits with no real interest in the loans  EVER. The fact that they are almost ALWAYS guarantors in situations where the loan was processed by them (there are many instances in which Frannie and Freddie closing forms are used but the loan was never sent to Freddie or Fannie),

So in one case for example the statement that Fannie was the investor from the start is only an indication that Fannie was a conduit for investment dollars collected from the secondary market as a result of sale or resale of the loans, of the bonds or both. There is no scenario under which Fannie and Freddie remain the “investor.”

http://www.mortgageloan.com/mortgage-loan-modification/who-owns-my-mortgage

Is the loan look-up site the real thing? Sort of.
Yes it is legitimate and the client should have already given their social security number or at least the last 4 digits. But remember just because it is listed on the website of Fannie or Freddie does not actually mean that they own the loan. It only means that they have guaranteed the loan or the mortgage bond that was issued  by a trust whose trust beneficiaries advanced money for the origination or acquisition of the loan.
There are circumstances under which Fannie and Freddie buy loans using cash or mortgage bonds for which they are the master trustee of a trust. But they don’t ever keep them. So the listing on the site is not dispositive of exactly what the status of the loan is, the ownership of the loan or the loan balance. In fact it doesn’t even establish the loan existence. A witness from Fannie or Freddie should be interviewed as to the status of this particular loan and whether or not the agency is acting as the master trustee, guarantor or some combination of the two. The other possibility is that they actually own it by virtue of an actual purchase some of which transactions did occur between 2008 and 2009.
%d bloggers like this: