Freddie Mac Selling Toxic Loans: Do they really own those loans?

The resulting case law is opening up Pandora’s box as the law of these foreclosure cases spills over into hundreds of other situations.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345 to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.


So I have two questions that should be sufficiently annoying to the banksters: (1) what makes Freddie think it owns the loans? and (2) if the loans are in default doesn’t that make the notes non-negotiable paper?

As to the first, my guess is that Freddie paid somebody something. What they used as currency was MBS issued by private label trusts. The MBS were worthless because they were issued by an unfunded paper trust. Freddie paid somebody using those bonds. But that somebody didn’t own the loans because the money had already been advanced by ANOTHER party (the investors) under a false deposit scheme with the investment/commercial banks.


So the debt was at all times owned by an unidentified and perhaps unidentifiable  group of investors/victims who to this day may not know that their money was hijacked to make toxic loans. That makes any sale or assignment to anyone void, including Freddie Mac. And whoever is getting paper executed by Freddie Mac is getting exactly what Freddie owns: NOTHING.


As to the second, if the loans in default are not negotiable paper, then the presumptions attendant to negotiable paper under Article 3 of the UCC do not apply. And if THAT is the case, the party in possession is not a holder, not a holder in due course and possibly not a possessor with rights to enforce. They would need to prove that they paid for the “loan” and they would need to show that there was a loan [not just from anyone. It must be an actual loan of money from the party identified as Payee on the note]. They would need to show that they not only bought the note but they also bought the debt.

As it turns out the note and the debt are owned by two different parties. The debt normally merges into the note so that when someone signs it they don’t have two liabilities. But what if the debt was owned by a third party at the time the maker signed the note? Assuming the maker did not know that a third party was involved, the maker is back in the position of two debts — the very problem that the merger rule was intended to prevent.


So far the courts have endeavored to deal with this tricky problem by pretending it does not exist. The resulting case law is opening up Pandora’s box as the law of these foreclosure cases spills over into hundreds of other situations.


About Those PSA Signatures

What is apparent is that the trusts never came into legal existence both because they were never funded and because they were in many cases never signed. Failure to execute and failure to fund the trust reduces the “trust” to a pile of ashes.


From one case in which I am consulting, this is my response to the inquiring lawyer:

I can find no evidence that there is a Trust ever created or operational by the name of “RMAC REMIC Trust Series 2009-9”. In my honest opinion I don’t think there ever was such a trust. I think that papers were drawn up for the trust but never executed. Since the trusts are phantoms anyway, this was consistent with the facts. The use of the trust as a Plaintiff in a court action is a fraud upon the court and the Defendants. The fact that the trust does not exist deprives the court of any jurisdiction. We’ll see when you get the alleged PSA, which even if physically hand-signed probably represents another example of robo-signing, fabrication, back-dating and forgery.

I think it will not show signatures — and remember digital or electronic signatures are not acceptable unless they meet the terms of legislative approval. Keep in mind that the Mortgage Loan Schedule (MLS) was BY DEFINITION  created long after the cutoff date. I say it is by definition because every Prospectus I have ever read states that the MLS attached to the PSA at the time of investment is NOT the real MLS, and that it is there by way of example only. The disclosure is that the actual loan schedule will be filled in “later.”



also see DigitalSignatures

References are from Wikipedia, but verified


On digital signatures, they are supposed to be from a provable source that cannot be disavowed. And they are supposed to have electronic characteristics making the digital signature provable such that one would have confidence at least as high as a handwritten signature.

Merely typing a name does nothing. it is neither a digital nor electronic signature. Lawyers frequently make the mistake of looking at a document with /s/ John  Smith and assuming that it qualifies as digital or electronic signature. It does not.

We lawyers think that because we do it all the time. What we are forgetting is that our signature is coming through a trusted source and already has been vetted when we signed up for digital filing and further is backed up by court rules and Bar rules that would reign terror on a lawyer who attempted to disavow the signature.

A digital signature is a mathematical scheme for demonstrating the authenticity of a digital message or documents. A valid digital signature gives a recipient reason to believe that the message was created by a known sender, that the sender cannot deny having sent the message (authentication and non-repudiation), and that the message was not altered in transit (integrity).

Digital signatures are a standard element of most cryptographic protocol suites, and are commonly used for software distribution, financial transactions, contract management software, and in other cases where it is important to detect forgery or tampering.

Electronic signatures are different but only by degree and focus:

An electronic signature is intended to provide a secure and accurate identification method for the signatory to provide a seamless transaction. Definitions of electronic signatures vary depending on the applicable jurisdiction. A common denominator in most countries is the level of an advanced electronic signature requiring that:

  1. The signatory can be uniquely identified and linked to the signature
  2. The signatory must have sole control of the private key that was used to create the electronic signature
  3. The signature must be capable of identifying if its accompanying data has been tampered with after the message was signed
  4. In the event that the accompanying data has been changed, the signature must be invalidated[6]

Electronic signatures may be created with increasing levels of security, with each having its own set of requirements and means of creation on various levels that prove the validity of the signature. To provide an even stronger probative value than the above described advanced electronic signature, some countries like the European Union or Switzerland introduced the qualified electronic signature. It is difficult to challenge the authorship of a statement signed with a qualified electronic signature – the statement is non-reputable.[7] Technically, a qualified electronic signature is implemented through an advanced electronic signature that utilizes a digital certificate, which has been encrypted through a security signature-creating device [8] and which has been authenticated by a qualified trust service provider.[9]


Comes Now Defendants and Move to Dismiss the instant action for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction and as grounds therefor say as follows:

  1. The named plaintiff in this action does not exist.
  2. After extensive investigation and inquiry, neither Defendants nor undersigned counsel nor forensic experts can find any evidence that the alleged trust ever existed, much less conducted business.
  3. There is no evidence that the alleged trustee ever ACTUALLY conducted any business in the name of the trust, much less a purchase of loans, much less the purchase of the subject loan.
  4. There is no evidence that the Trust exists nor any evidence that the Trust’s name has ever been used except in the context of (1) “foreclosure” which has, in the opinion, of forensic experts, merely a cloak for the continuing theft of investor money and assets to the detriment of both the real parties in interest and the Defendants and (2) the sale of bonds to investors falsely presented as having been issued by the “trust”, the proceeds of which “sale” was never received by the trust.
  5. Upon due diligence before filing such a lawsuit causing the forfeiture of homestead property, counsel knew or should have known that the Trust never existed nor has any business ever been conducted in the name of the Trust except the sale of bonds allegedly issued by the Trust and the use of the name of the trust to sue in foreclosure.
  6. As for the sale of the bonds allegedly issued by the Trust there is no evidence that the Trust ever issued said bonds and there is (a) no evidence the Trust received any funds ever from the sale of bonds or any other source and (b) having no assets, money or bank account, there is no possible evidence that the Trust acquired any assets, business or even incurred any liabilities.
  7. Wells Fargo, individually and not as Trustee, has engaged in a widespread pattern of behavior of presenting itself as Trustee of non existent Trusts and should be sanctioned to prevent it or anyone else in the banking industry from engaging in such conduct.

WHEREFORE Defendants pray this Honorable Court will dismiss the instant complaint with prejudice, award attorneys fees, costs and sanctions against opposing counsel and Wells Fargo individually and not as Trustee of a nonexistent Trust for falsely presenting itself as the Trustee of a Trust it knew or should have known had no existence.


SCHEDULE CONSULT! to schedule, leave message or make payments.

Insurers Pay Pretender Lenders and Then Pursue Homeowner for the “Loss”

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

see Insurers pay “losses” on mortgages and then pursue borrowers for recovery of payment

A big area of confusion in the foreclosure cases is the impact of insurance claims and payments with respect to insured mortgages and insured mortgage bonds. So let’s start with the fact that there are many types of insurance contracts that affect the balance to be proven in a foreclosure case. The simplest rule to follow which has been stated in a number of cases, is that if the party seeking foreclosure has already received payments ON THAT LOAN then the balance should be correspondingly reduced. But that reduction is between the pretender lender and the borrower. That doesn’t mean that whoever paid the money to the pretender lender can’t pursue the homeowner for the amount paid. But it does affect the foreclosure because the insurance or third party payment (FDIC loss sharing, for example or Fannie or Freddie buyout or guarantee) affects the claimed liability of the borrower.

If you ask the banks about these payments you get stonewalled. And depending upon the timing of the payment it might invalidate the claim of a default, a notice of default and notice of sale. It could also negate the right to foreclose — again depending upon the timing of the payment.

There have been only 2,000 cases in which the insurers have paid the pretender lender and then fled a lawsuit against the homeowner/borrower. They are claiming they paid for a loss incurred by the pretender lender and that the borrower was essentially unjustly enriched and also claiming subrogation (whatever rights the pretender lender had against the borrower goes to the party making the payment to the pretender lender). The problem here of course is that while only 2,000 cases have been field against borrowers by insurers, there are hundreds of thousands of payments received by the pretender lenders.

And the fact that the insurer paid does NOT mean (but will often be presumed anyway) that the loss was actually incurred by the pretender lender. It is one thing to mistakenly apply presumptions under the UCC in which the pretender lender gets to foreclose. It is quite another when the insurer is making a claim that it paid a loss on your mortgage. They must prove the loss. And that means they not only must prove that they paid the claim, but that the claim was real.

For that reason, I am suggesting to foreclosure defense lawyers that they include, in discovery, the insurers and other third parties who appear to have some connection to the subject loan. This might present an opportunity to determine whether any real loss was present and could open the door to argue the reality: that the foreclosing parties neither owned nor had any risk of loss on the subject loans and that they did not represent any owner or other party entitled to enforce.

The take away here is that in a huge number of cases there are or were third party payments that reduced the alleged loss of the creditor or alleged creditor AND depending upon when those payments were made if might have the effect of rendering a notice of default void or even a foreclosure judgment where the redemption rights of the homeowner were affected by an incorrect statement of the loss. In actions for deficiency, the insurers are essentially cherry picking cases in which they think the borrower can pay the alleged loss. It also might represent an overpayment. For example if the third party payment was on a GSE guaranteed loan, did the pretender lender submit claims for both the insurance payment AND the guarantee payment? Under the terms of the note, the borrower might well be entitled to disgorgement of the overpayment, especially if it totals more than the claimed balance due on the alleged loan.

Insurance on the mortgage bonds is the same but more complicated and harder to present in court. The mortgage bond derives its value from the loan. That is why it is called a derivative. In nearly all cases the payment received by the banks (supposedly on behalf of the investors) is received long before a default on any specific loans and there is NO SUBROGATION. The insurers cannot step into the shoes of the pretender lender under those contracts. The “loss” is a claimed reduction in value called a “credit event” that is declared by the Master Servicer in sole discretion. The payment might be all or less than all of the par value of the mortgage bond.

Whatever the amount, it reduces the alleged loss as between the homeowner and any party making a claim for foreclosure based upon an alleged loss incurred from their default. This is true because the balance due to the investors under the mortgage bond has been covered already by the “credit event” which includes many things other than default on any specific loans, so the payment might include a claimed loss from default on a specific group of loans and other factors. In any event, the investors’ books if they were available would show a lower balance due than what any servicer would show. And that would mean that the default notice might be incorrect especially in terms of the reinstatement amount in the paragraph 22 letter.

And because these insurance contracts provide for no subrogation (no claims can be brought by insurer against the homeowner) the reduction in the balance is a reduction of the balance due from the borrower; and THAT is because if the borrower paid the full amount due on the claims of the pretender lender there would be a windfall or “free ride” to the pretender lender (adding insult to injury).

Comments Welcome

Who is the “lender” or “creditor”?

Click to tune TONITE in on The Neil Garfield Show

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

LET’S PROCEED STEP BY STEP. – Based upon actual documentation filed with the SEC

1. let’s assume that the mortgage is defective because it was not perfected. The note described a party who was not the creditor and gave no notice as to the actual identity of the creditor.
2. Let’s assume also that the note was paid in full from a variety of sources, which you know about ad nauseum.
3. Let’s further assume that the transfer documents are either non-existent or defective in that there was no actual transaction (they are false), there was no authority of the signatories etc.
4. Now let’s see what evidence I come up with to show that one or all of these things are true.


We will issue and guarantee the certificates. Each certificate represents an undivided ownership interest in a pool of adjustable-rate residential mortgage loans. We offer each certificate by this prospectus supplement and the prospectus referenced in the pool statistics included herein.

Notice the reference to “pool statistics” and not the loans. There was a spreadsheet attached as though those were the loans, but it says later in the prospectus that those are not the real loans. So we have an offer, acceptance and consideration given by the investor to the broker dealer. If they had put the money in the trust, as they were required to do, then the Trust would have funded the transactions and received the necessary assignment through the Depositor. Discovery from hundreds of cases strongly suggests they never did that, because they were more interested in lining their own pockets (i.e., the broker dealers) than in giving the protection promised to the investors — which was an undivided ownership interest in the loans through a derivative security (mortgage bond). They got the mortgage bond but it was issued by a trust that in all probability never received the money and never engaged in any transaction.

What that means is that they (a) intend to do something in the future as of the date of this instrument, which appears to be some time in 2005 and (b) each certificate represents an undivided interest in the loans as a pool and do not represent direct ownership of the loans themselves (c) and it appears to indicate that that FNMA issues and guarantees the certificates, not the loans. Note that FNMA is not a lender but rather a guarantor although it is frequently referred to as a lender because it serves in the nominal position of “Master Trustee” for REMIC Trusts whose Trust Beneficiaries funded the loan, even if it wasn’t through the trust.

The certificates are issued under the terms of the ARM trust indenture dated as of July 1, 1984, as amended.

What that means is that the agreement and intentions of the parties were set long before the first contact or application was made by the borrower. This impacts the mortgage origination. TILA and RESPA require full disclosure of the identity of the lender because the very purpose of TILA was to make sure the borrower had enough information to make a choice between one lender or another. By depriving the borrower of this knowledge, the borrower was unaware that the purpose of his/her “loan” product was to sell securities and that the “securitization” parties had a greater incentive to sell the loan than make sure that the loan was viable — even if they had no intention of actually securitizing the loan in the manner set forth in the Prospectus and Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

The borrower is also not advised that his/her name and credit score would be used to sell those securities. Now this doesn’t mean the loan wasn’t real, but it does point to the fact that the actual identity of the funders of the loan was being kept secret and that the note was defective in failing to show that this was the intent of the parties sitting across the table from the borrower. By keeping this information from both the lender and the borrower, the “securitization” parties were obviously intending to use the identities of the lenders and use the identities of the borrowers to create actual or fictitious transactions to cover any excessive compensation or payoffs they were anticipating.

We have responsibility for the servicing of the mortgage loans in the pool. Every month we will pay to certificate holders scheduled installments of principal on the mortgage loans in the pool, together with one month’s accrued interest at the pool accrual rate. We guarantee to pay these amounts, whether or not the borrowers under the mortgage loans pay us. If we foreclose on a mortgage loan, we also must pay certificate holders the full principal balance of that loan even if we recover a lesser amount.

There are several possible interpretations here. And that is because “we” is not actually an identification of any party or parties. One is that FNMA was the creditor in fact the whole time. The fact that FNMA is not the creditor because it never loaned any money and never bought the loans (except possibly as Master Trustee for a REMIC Trust, which could only mean that the REMIC trust bought it acting through FNMA acting as a “manager”). Another is that the investors were the creditors, and still another is that the trust was the creditor. It’s really not that clear.

What IS clear is that the investors were paid no matter what, which means that from the investor point of view there could be no default — ever, unless FNMA defaulted. This is the quasi equivalent of servicer advances. In truth both servicer advances and the guarantee payments probably came from a reserve fund taken out of the investors’ pool of money sitting in the broker dealer’s account. The reason why the payments were made regardless of what the borrower did was that the broker dealers wanted to sell more bonds.

By creating the illusion that all is well with the loan pool, the investors continued to buy the mortgage bonds. The authority for paying the investors out of their own money is directly stated in language buried in the prospectus, at a point where most fund managers have stopped reading and are relying upon their trust of investment banks who have a reputation dating back as much as 150 years. This was a reputation they cashed. The only true securitization was that the reputation of the major banks was sold off multiple times in bogus instruments that do NOT qualify for security exemption and SHOULD be subject to SEC enforcement.

Hence the source of funding was paid and is being paid and is guaranteed to be paid in all events. So here is the problem: if the guarantee was of the certificate and not of the mortgage how exactly does FNMA claim direct ownership of the loan? You have a right to see those transactions and ascertain the true value of the mortgage and the true creditor. It is unlikely that there were two guarantees — one for the certificates and one for the loans. And the interesting part of that is my understanding of the process is that FNMA was to created to guarantee loans not certificates.

The point of this exercise is to emphasize the importance of actually reading the “securitization” documents and to compare the events set forth in the documents with the actual events. If the document says the loan was to be acquired through an assignment that is in recordable form and which is recorded, then there are several questions. Was the document of assignment prepared? Was it recorded? And most of all was there any transaction in which the Trust paid for the assignment?

And of course as almost everyone knows in foreclosure defense, when did this alleged transaction take place. The name of the trust usually has a year and sometimes a month in it and that gives the answer about when the transaction must have taken place in order to qualify for a valid acquisition of loan — i.e., the 90 day cutoff.

So we know by definition and from the facts of closing that if the closing took place on December 1, 2006 and the cutoff date for trust business was January 1, 2007, that the assignment was required during that period. But we also know from experience that these assignments appear out of thin air only for mortgages that are in litigation — leading to what some in foreclosure defense refer to as “ta da!” assignments — obviously fabricated minutes before they were used in court.

The last item is the most deadly for the banks. It is perfectly appropriate to ask for the transaction in which the transfer took place. The assignment, fabricated or not, says it took place on a certain date. The banking system is set up so that there are multiple sets of footprints for the movement of money. So your question is, show me the transaction where the Trust issued a check or wire transfer for this mortgage. Their answer is no. They will cite all sorts of reasons for this, but the real one is that the transaction does not exist.

It doesn’t exist now, it didn’t exist then and it never will exist because in most cases the money advanced by investors to the broker dealers was never used in the manner set forth in the prospectus. That is a subject for litigation between investors and broker dealers and there have been hundreds of such claims now that the truth is coming out. The only significance to you is that you now have actual knowledge that the investors directly and involuntarily funded the origination or acquisition of your loan, but failed to get the what they should have received — a note and mortgage payable to the investors.

Naming the mortgage broker or originator on the note and mortgage is pure fiction and in my opinion renders those instruments void. The alleged transaction at the closing with the borrower was a sham. He or she was induced to sign closing documents upon the mistaken belief that the originator or mortgage broker was actually lending the money to him or her. The moment the borrower signed the note and mortgage, and the moment the mortgage was recorded, there was a cloud on title because the mortgage was defective — a mortgage which the investors themselves allege was unenforceable for exactly the reason set forth in this article.

Analysis taken from


SET 2 TEXT RECOGNIZABLE FM 000471 – MERS history of lender, investor, servicing.pdf;




monthly reporting.pdf;


Prospectus July 1, 2004.pdf;


Supplement to Prospectus.pdf

Fannie and Freddie Demand $6 Billion for Sale of “Faulty Mortgage Bonds”

You read the news on one settlement after another, it sounds like the pound of flesh is being exacted from the culprits again and again. This time the FHFA, as owner of Fannie and Freddie, is going for a settlement with Bank of America for sale of “faulty mortgage bonds.” And most people sit back and think that justice is being done. It isn’t. $6 Billion is window dressing on a liability that is at least 100 times that amount. And stock analysts take comfort that the legal problems for the banks has basically been discounted already. It hasn’t.

For practitioners who defend mortgage foreclosures, you must dig a little deeper. The term “faulty mortgage bonds” is a euphemism. Look at the complaints there filed. When they are filed by agencies it means that after investigation they have arrived at the conclusion that something was. very wrong with the sale of mortgage bonds. That is an administrative finding that concluded there was at least probable cause for finding that the mortgage bonds were defective and potentially were criminal.

So what does “defective” or “faulty” mean? Neither the media nor the press releases from the agencies or the banks tell us what was wrong with the bonds. But if you look at the complaints of the agencies, they tell you what they mean. If you look at the investor lawsuits you see that they are alleging that the notes and mortgages were “unenforceable.” Both the agencies and the investors filed complaints alleging that the mortgage bonds were a farce, sham or in other words, a PONZI Scheme.

Why is that important to foreclosure defense? Digging deeper you will find what I have been reporting on this blog. The investors money was not used to fund the REMIC trusts. The unfunded trusts never had the money to buy or fund the origination of bonds. The notes and mortgages were never sold to the Trusts even though “assignments” were executed and shown in court. The assignments themselves were either backdated or violated the 90 day cutoff that under applicable law (the laws of the State of New York) are VOID and not voidable.

What to do? File Freedom of Information Act requests for the findings, allegations and names of investigators for the agency that were involved in the agency action. Take their deposition. Get documents. Find put what mortgages were looked at and which bond series were involved. Get a list of the mortgages and the bonds that were examined. Get the findings on each mortgage and each mortgage bond. Use the the investor allegations as lender admissions admissions in court — that the notes and mortgages are unenforceable.

There is a disconnect between what is going on at the top of the sham securitization chain and what went on in sham mortgage originations and sham sales of loans. They never happened in the real world, no matter how much paper you throw at it.

And that just doesn’t apply to mortgages in default — it applies to all mortgages, which is why all the mortgages that currently exist, and most of the deeds that show ownership of the property have clouded and probably “defective” and “faulty” titles. It’s clear logic that the government and the banks are seeking to avoid, to wit: that if the way in which the money was raised to fund the loans or purchase the loans were defective, then it follows that there are defects in the chain of title and the money trail that were obviously not disclosed, as per the requirements of TILA and Reg Z.

And when you keep digging in discovery you will find out that your client has some clear remedies to collect the profits and compensation paid to undisclosed recipients arising out of the closing of the “loan.” These are offsets to the amount claimed as due. If the loan was not funded by the Trust, then the false paper trail used by the banks in foreclosure is subject to successful attack. If the loans were in fact funded directly by the trust complying with the REMIC provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, then the payee on the note and the mortgagee on the mortgage would be the trust — or if the loan was actually purchased, the Trust would have issued money to the seller (something that never happened).

And lastly, for now, let us look at the capital structure of these banks. A substantial portion of their capital derives from assets in the form of mortgage bonds. This is the most blatant lie of all of them. No underwriter buys the securities issued by the company seeking financing through an offering to investors. It is an oxymoron. The whole purpose of the underwriter was to create securities that would be appealing to investors. The securities are only issued when you have a buyer for them, and then the investor is the owner of the security — in this case mortgage bonds.

The bonds are not issued to the investment bank as an asset of the investment bank. But they ARE issued to the investment bank in “street name.” That is merely to facilitate trading and delivery of certificates which in most cases in the mortgage bond market don’t exist. The issuance in street name does not mean the banks own the mortgage bonds any more than when you a stock and the title is issued in street name mean that you have loaned or gifted the investment to the investment bank.

If you follow the logic of the investment bank then the deposits of money by depository customers could be claimed as assets — without the required entry in the liabilities section of the balance sheet because every dollar on deposit is a liability to pay those monies on demand, which is why checking accounts are referred to as demand deposits.

Hence the “asset” has been entered on the investment bank balance sheet without the corresponding liability on the other side of their balance sheet. And THAT remains that under cover of Federal Reserve purchase of these bonds from the banks, who don’t own the bonds, the value of the bonds is 100 cents on the dollar and the owner is the bank — a living lies fundamental. When the illusion collapses, the banks are coming down with it. You can only go so far lying to the public and the investment community. Eventually the reality is these banks are underfunded, under capitalized and still being propped up by quantitative easing disguised as the purchase of mortgage bonds at the rate of $85 Billion per month.

We need to be preparing for the collapse of the illusion and get the other financial institutions — 7,000 community and regional banks and credit unions — ready to take on the changes caused by the absence of the so-called major banks who are really fictitious entities without a foundation related to economic reality. The backbone is already available — electronic funds transfer is as available to the smallest bank as it is to the largest. It is an outright lie that we need the TBTF banks. They have failed and cannot recover because of the enormity of the lies they told the world. It’s over.

Why Do Subservicers Continue to Pay Investors After Borrower Stops Paying?

It is now common knowledge that subservicers are continuing to pay investors and reporting the loan as “performing” after they have sent a default and right to reinstate notice as required by the mortgage (usually paragraph 22) and by the uniform debt collection laws. The first problem about this is that the actual creditor does not show a default whereas the bookkeeper Servicer is declaring the default. With the investor receiving his regular payments, how can a default exist? This appears to apply to securitized student loans as well.

Bottom line is that the subservicer is reporting to the borrower that the loan is in default but reporting to the investor (the creditor) that it isn’t in default. These payments have gone on for as long as 18 months that I have seen. Which brings us back to the first articles ever written on this blog.

The borrower is only required to make payments that are DUE. The payment isn’t due if it is already been made and there is nothing to reinstate if the creditor has already received his expected payment. The payments are NOT DUE TO THE SERVICER. They are due to the creditor. If the creditor received the payment on that loan as shown in the distribution report to the creditor, then the conditions necessary to declare that the loan is in default are not present. Remember that the presence of a table funded loan, an aggregator, the securitization, the trust was withheld from the borrower. The banks could have covered themselves by adding to the mortgage and note that third party payments to the creditor will not reduce the payments, principal or interest. But if they had done that, they would have required to answer so e uncomfortable questions.

The second issue is the constant question “Why would they continue making payments to the ‘creditor’ when they are not receiving payments from the borrower?” And “Where are they getting the money to pay the creditor?”

After talking with sources from deep inside the industry the answer to why they are paying is primarily to sell more bonds and hide the default issues. The secondary reason is to make the investor complacent about the accounting for what was really received on account of the loans and from whom. That inquiry could lead to a demand from the investor for payment in full and if the REMIC doesn’t pay, then the investors sue the investment banker who was the one playing with OPM (other people’s money).

The answer to the second question is that the money comes from the investment banker. Whether the investment banker is merely using the investor’s money (allowed under prospectus) or using insurance proceeds or payments on CDS (credit default swaps) or even sale proceeds to the Federal Reserve varies. Either way it is an effort to keep money that should go to the investor and reduce the amount payable to the investor and which would reduce or eliminate the debt owed by the homeowner to the investor. It is fraud, theft and probably a bunch of other things.

%d bloggers like this: