Bank of New York Mellon

WE HAVE REVAMPED OUR SERVICE OFFERINGS TO MEET THE REQUESTS OF LAWYERS AND HOMEOWNERS. This is not an offer for legal representation.
Our services consist mainly of the following:
  1. 30 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  2. 60 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  3. Case review and analysis
  4. Rescission review and drafting of documents for notice and recording
  5. COMBO Title and Securitization Review
  6. Expert witness declarations and testimony
  7. Consultant to attorneys representing homeowners
  8. Books and Manuals authored by Neil Garfield are also available, plus video seminars on DVD.
For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. You also may fill out our Registration form which, upon submission, will automatically be sent to us. That form can be found at https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1452614114632. By filling out this form you will be allowing us to see your current status. If you call or email us at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com your question or request for service can then be answered more easily.
================================

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

—————-
I have periodically reminded people that they should be carefully watching litigation between the perpetrators of the massive false securitization scheme. You really should see those cases, including tax cases, where the admissions and allegations in some cases directly contravene allegations by the same parties in foreclosure cases. It doesn’t bother them taking inconsistent positions because (a) nobody looks and (b) they will get away with it anyway, as long as Judges presume that all is well with the paperwork.
The prime issues in these cases revolve around a simple proposition. If the Trustee of a REMIC Trust was the Trustee of a REMIC Trust, why didn’t they act like it — demanding buy-backs, damages etc. for horrendous underwriting criteria that was opposite to what was promised in the prospectus, what was reported to the rating agencies and what was disclosed through press releases?
The answer is simple — there was no Trust, REMIC or otherwise. Investors who believed that the money would be managed by the Trust were intentionally deceived by the Underwriter/Master Servicer. The money did not go under Trustee management. Instead it went into the pocket of the Wall Street Bank that acted as the underwriter/master servicer.
While the terms of the Trust duties as spelled out in the prospectus and the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are craftily worded, it is apparent that the duties of the Trustee shrink as you read further and further. But under common law and apparently the TRUST INDENTURE ACT, a named Trustee who  accepts the assignment and is named in the Trust has duties that transcend the caveats that essentially leave the so-called Trustee with no duties at all.
Normally this would bother a prospective Trustee (US Bank, DEUTSCH, BONY/MELLON, Citi, BOA, Wells Fargo etc.). But what is STILL not being recognized is that the initial premise of the transaction never occurred. The money from the sale of the MBS to investors never made it into any account under management by the Trustee. It really was THERE that the named Trustee failed to act, even though they were recruited for their name (leasing their brand) for a monthly fee with no Trustee responsibilities. Upon issuance of the MBS from the Trust, the Trust was owed the proceeds. It never received the proceeds and the Trustee either didn’t know, didn’t care or both.
Josh Yager writes the following:

 

The preamble to the Uniform Prudent Investor Act notes, “The tradeoff in all investing between risk and return is identified as the fiduciary’s central consideration.”  For most trustees determining the return that was produced by the assets held in trust is a fairly straightforward exercise. Most investment managers are required to produce performance data that is SEC-compliant. However, defining whether the return experienced was appropriate, given the level of risk that was taken, is more complicated.

The Bogert treatise states, “The trustee cannot assume that if investments are legal and proper for retention at the beginning of the trust, or when purchased, they will remain so indefinitely. Rather, the trustee must systematically consider all the investments of the trust at regular intervals to ensure that they are appro­priate” (A. Hess, G. Bogert, & G. Bogert, Law of Trusts and Trustees §684, pp.145–146 (3d ed. 2009)).

To fulfill this duty to monitor the risk and return of the trust assets a prudent trustee, acting in good faith, will make the following inquiries:

Target Return: The manager’s actual performance will initially be compared to the trustee’s stated return objective. This begs the question whether the trustee has taken steps to define a targeted rate of return for the assets of which they are responsible. If they have not, they are encouraged to do so. The Target Return is stated as an absolute number (e.g., 7.0%) or as a real, inflation-adjusted number (e.g., Inflation + 4.0%).

Strategic Benchmark: The manager’s actual performance will be tested to determine whether any strategic value has been added by the manager.  This test answers the specific question, “Have the manager’s strategic investment choices produced a better outcome than a simple investment in a few major asset classes?”  This is done by comparing the actual performance and risk to that of a simple “vanilla” Strategic Benchmark that is historically consistent with the trustee’s stated Target Return (see above).  The Strategic Benchmark is a combination of Russell 3000 (US Stock), MSCI ACWI ex-US (Int’l stock including Emerging Markets), and Barclays 1-10 Yr Muni (Bonds).  For tax-deferred/free accounts, the bond component will be the BOFAML US Corp/Govt 1-10 Yr.

  1. The stock-to-bond ratio used is a mix of stocks and bonds which historically matched the client’s Target Return over the last 50 years.
  2. The Russell 3000 and MSCI ACWI ex-US are intended to represent the entire stock universe.  For example, the Russell 3000 includes US Small Cap stocks, US Value stocks, etc., and the MSCI ACWI ex-US includes Emerging Market stocks.
  3. The US-to-Int’l ratio is fixed at 70/30 to represent the “home bias” that investors of any given country typically exhibit and to recognize that the client usually spends US Dollars.
  4. For example, if the client’s Target Return is 7.0% (or Inflation + 4.0%), the Strategic Benchmark will be 40% Barclays 1-10 Yr Muni, 42% Russell 3000 and 18% MSCI ACWI ex-US.

Risk: In addition to measuring the manager’s performance against these two benchmarks, there must be an evaluation of the risk that has been accepted by each manager. Some forms of risk are quantitative and can be discovered through statistical analysis. Other types of risk cannot be deduced from statistical inquiry and require a more subjective analysis.

  1. Quantitative Risk Measures
  • Standard Deviation / Downside Deviation
  • Value-at-Risk
  • Beta
  • Max Drawdown
  • High Month Return / Low Month Return
  • Sharpe Ratio (risk-adjusted return)
  • M-Squared (risk-adjusted return)
  • Information Ratio (risk-adjusted return)
  1. Qualitative Risks
  • Lack of Liquidity: The % of the trust that cannot be liquidated within 5 business days
  • Concentration: The % of the trust held in the single largest security
  • Leverage: The % of leverage used by the trust as reflected in a debt-to-equity ratio
  • Lack of Valuation: The % of the trust assets that do not have daily valuation

Most investment managers, if provided with this overview, can help the trustee create a record that these factors have been considered and documented. If the investment manager is unable to help the trustee develop such a record, a prudent trustee will take steps to independently evaluate these factors or find an investment manager that is willing and able to do so.

Colorado County Court Judge Gets It

WE HAVE REVAMPED OUR SERVICE OFFERINGS TO MEET THE REQUESTS OF LAWYERS AND HOMEOWNERS. This is not an offer for legal representation.
Our services consist mainly of the following:
  1. 30 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  2. 60 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  3. Case review and analysis
  4. Rescission review and drafting of documents for notice and recording
  5. COMBO Title and Securitization Review
  6. Expert witness declarations and testimony
  7. Consultant to attorneys representing homeowners
  8. Books and Manuals authored by Neil Garfield are also available, plus video seminars on DVD.
For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. You also may fill out our Registration form which, upon submission, will automatically be sent to us. That form can be found at https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1452614114632. By filling out this form you will be allowing us to see your current status. If you call or email us at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com your question or request for service can then be answered more easily.
================================

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

—————-

see Ruling on Motion RE Hearing December 4, 2015

Hat Tip Eric Mains

I have already commented on this case but there are issues that are becoming more clear as to jurisdiction and so a review of this case is warranted, where the Judge correctly declined to rule until a court of competent jurisdiction ruled on the issue of ownership. In so doing the court refused to grant the eviction order even though the sale had taken place and a deed was issued.

The Judge realized that as a county court judge he lacked jurisdiction to even hear the issue of whether the foreclosure sale was void. Hence he deferred any action on granting eviction until the issues of ownership were resolved. Why? Because eviction can only be granted to the owner of a the property. In this case there was a rescission in the mix. Hence any action after the rescission was mailed was void if it involved enforcing the alleged loan contract, note or mortgage.

As far as I know, there is no law or judicial doctrine that says that if the statutory or common law prohibits you from doing something, and then you do it anyway, that suddenly it becomes lawful because you did it anyway. Breaking the law would thus be changing the law.

The sub-point here that has reared its head and which virtually nobody is paying any attention is in the bankruptcy courts. People think of BKR judges as Federal Judges. Not so fast. They once were called magistrates and still rule subject to an appeal to the Federal District Judge.

It is doubtful, to say the least, that any bankruptcy action, whether 7, 11 or 13, can be continued where the home is a significant part of the estate if the there is a question of ownership, authority or balance raised by the Petitioner. Trustees, Judges and lawyers on all sides are missing the point here. The current trend of ignoring the defenses of the borrower are probably going to lead to a line of decisions that over-rules that practice. But more than anything, the question is whether the BKR judge has any jurisdiction to do anything other than follow the procedures in TILA Rescission as confirmed by SCOTUS.

————————–

This case raises another huge potential problem for the banks on the TILA front, and on the possession front, in a nutshell: They ignored rescission, went ahead with foreclosure sale anyway. The State court ignores the rescission or the borrower does not raise TILA rescission in State Court, whatever. The property goes to sale, BUT, guess who credit bids? Hint, like usual , it ain’t the party who said they held the loan, oopsy! Homeowner won’t move out of the house, “Creditor” files for an eviction.

Think of situations like this where a Homeowner responds to eviction notice in court, “Your honor, First, I issued a TILA rescission before sale and they failed to respond, Second, they are not the proper owners, just look at the credit bid and see for yourself.”

Court says, “You are correct, we don’t have jurisdiction to hear such a claim”, OR they respond “OK we do have jurisdiction, but you can appeal this decision to a higher court”, either way, this is going to be a long haul for the claimed Plaintiff/owner, because getting the foreclosure in their favor does not equal possession, it may take them years and they may LOSE.

So trying to pretend like the rescission does not exist means you may not get possession. You may in fact be liable for quite a bit of damages, or lose even after winning a foreclosure action because a ruling in favor of TILA rescission in a federal or district court action may mean the foreclosure ruling can be overturned, potentially by quiet title, a rule 60 motion, or otherwise.

This opens a whole other dimension for homeowners, and against the banks. They have a judgment, but they can’t get the house, and are in limbo for a long time with possibly being overturned at a later date. Lesson here for them: Don’t mess with TILA, and don’t try to sneak in a credit bid post ruling that shows you were lying to the judge about ownership of the loan.

Holland and Knight Published General Information on Securitizations

While I was researching securitization of BOAT LOANS I came across the following apparently published by Holland and Knight. Several of their statements could prove helpful especially where one is confronting that law firm as an adversary. I copied some of the more relevant statements.

I also stumbled across this PowerPoint presentation from the American Securitization Forum in 2009 which is available on the Internet. Securitization101ASF2009

see http://mx.nthu.edu.tw/~chclin/Class/Securitization.htm

MAJOR PLAYERS

The major “players” in the securitization game, all of whom require legal representation to some degree, are as follows (this terminology is typical, but different terms are used; for example the “originator” is often referred to as the “issuer” or “seller”):

Originator – the entity that either generates Receivables in the ordinary course of its business, or purchases and assembles portfolios of Receivables (in that sense, not a true “originator”). Its counsel works closely with counsel to the Underwriter/Placement Agent and the Rating Agencies in structuring the transaction and preparing documents and usually gives the most significant opinions. It also retains and coordinates local counsel in the event that it is not admitted in the jurisdiction where the Originator’s principal office is located, and in situations where significant Receivables are generated and the security interests that secure the Receivables are governed by local law rather than the law of the state where the Originator is located.

Issuer – the special purpose entity, usually an owner trust (but can be another form of trust or a corporation, partnership or fund), created pursuant to a Trust Agreement between the Originator (or in a two step structure, the Intermediate SPE) and the Trustee, that issues the Securities and avoids taxation at the entity level. This can create a problem in foreign Securitizations in civil law countries where the trust concept does not exist (see discussion below under “Foreign Securitizations”).

Trustees – usually a bank or other entity authorized to act in such capacity. The Trustee, appointed pursuant to a Trust Agreement, holds the Receivables, receives payments on the Receivables and makes payments to the Securityholders. In many structures there are two Trustees. For example, in an Owner Trust structure, which is most common, the Notes, which are pure debt instruments, are issued pursuant to an Indenture between the Trust and an Indenture Trustee, and the Certificates, representing undivided interests in the Trust (although structured and treated as debt obligations), are issued by the Owner Trustee. The Issuer (the Trust) owns the Receivables and grants a security interest in the Receivables to the Indenture Trustee. Counsel to the Trustee provides the usual opinions on the Trust as an entity, the capacity of the Trustee, etc.

Investors – the ultimate purchasers of the Securities. Usually banks, insurance companies, retirement funds and other “qualified investors.” In some cases, the Securities are purchased directly from the Issuer, but more commonly the Securities are issued to the Originator or Intermediate SPE as payment for the Receivables and then sold to the Investors, or in the case of an underwriting, to the Underwriters.

Underwriters/Placement Agents – the brokers, investment banks or banks that sell or place the Securities in a public offering or private placement. The Underwriters/Placement Agents usually play the principal role in structuring the transaction, frequently seeking out Originators for Securitizations, and their counsel (or counsel for the lead Underwriter/Placement Agent) is usually, but not always, the primary document preparer, generating the offering documents (private placement memorandum or offering circular in a private placement; registration statement and prospectus in a public offering), purchase agreements, trust agreement, custodial agreement, etc. Such counsel also frequently opines on securities and tax matters.

Custodian – an entity, usually a bank, that actually holds the Receivables as agent and bailee for the Trustee or Trustees.

Rating Agencies – Moody’s, S&P, Fitch IBCA and Duff & Phelps. In Securitizations, the Rating Agencies frequently are active players that enter the game early and assist in structuring the transaction. In many instances they require structural changes, dictate some of the required opinions and mandate changes in servicing procedures.

Servicer – the entity that actually deals with the Receivables on a day to day basis, collecting the Receivables and transferring funds to accounts controlled by the Trustees. In most transactions the Originator acts as Servicer.

Backup Servicer – the entity (usually in the business of acting in such capacity, as well as a primary Servicer when the Originator does not fill that function) that takes over the event that something happens to the Servicer. Depending upon the quality of the Originator/Servicer, the need and significance of the Backup Servicer may be important. In some cases the Trustee retains the Backup Servicer to perform certain monitoring functions on a continuing basis.

CREDIT ENHANCEMENT

Credit enhancements are required in every Securitization. The nature and amount depends on the risks of the Securitization as determined by the Rating Agencies, Underwriters/Placement Agents and Investors. They are intended to reduce the risks to the Investors and thereby increase the rating of the Securities and lower the costs to the Originator. Typical forms of credit enhancement are:

1. Over-collateralization – transferring to the Issuer, Receivables in amounts greater than required to pay the Securities if the proceeds of the Receivables were received as anticipated). The amount of over-collateralization (usually 5% to 10%) is determined by the Rating Agencies and the Underwriters/Placement Agents, and this in turn will depend upon the quality of the Receivables, other credit enhancement that may be available, the risk of the structure (such as the possible bankruptcy of the Originator/Servicer), the nature and condition of the industry in which the Receivables are generated, general economic conditions and, in the case of foreign-based Securitizations, the “Sovereign risk” (see discussion below under “Foreign Securitizations”). If all goes well, it is repurchased at the end of the transaction (see “Anatomy of a Securitization”)or returned as part of the residual interest. This form of credit enhancement is required in virtually all Securitizations.

2. Senior/subordinated structure – issuance of subordinated or secondary classes of Securities, which are lower-rated (and bear higher interest rates) and sold to other Investors or held by the Originator. In the event of problems, the higher rated (senior) Securities receive payments prior to the lower rated (subordinated) Securities. It is not uncommon for there to be a number of classes of Securities that are each subordinated to the more highly rated, resulting in a complex “waterfall” of payments of principal and interest. In the common structure described above, senior and subordinated classes of Notes would be paid, in order of priority, prior to classes of Certificates, and Certificates prior to any residual interest in the Issuer. This form of credit enhancement has become routine, but cannot be used in a grantor trust structure, which is why the owner trust has become most common.

3. Early amortization – if certain negative events occur, all payments from Receivables are applied to the more senior securities until paid. Very common.

4. Cash collateral account – the Originator deposits funds in account with Trustee to be used if proceeds from Receivables are not sufficient. Adjustable depending upon events. May be in the form of a demand “loan” by the Originator to the account. (e.s.)

5. Reserve fund – subordinated Securities retained by the Originator or Trustee and pledged for the benefit of the Trust (and, therefore, the Investors).

6. Security bond – guarantee (or wrap) of all payments due on the Securities. Issued by AAA-rated monoline insurance companies (if available).

7. Liquidity provider – in effect, a guarantee by the Originator (or its parent) or another entity of all or a portion of payments due on the Securities. (e.s.)

8. Letter of credit (for portion of amounts due on Securities) – not used much anymore because of costs. These were common in the late 1980’s when issued by Japanese banks at low rates.

LEGAL OPINIONS

Legal opinions are very important documents in every Securitization and result in considerable negotiations among counsel for the Originator, Underwriter/Placement Agent and Rating Agencies. The opinions given by the Originator’s counsel are the most extensive, frequently running 50 or more pages because of the need for reasoned opinions, as courts have not ruled upon many of the underpinnings of the Securitization structure. In addition to the usual opinions regarding due organization, good standing, corporate power, litigation, etc, others deal with the validity and priority of security interests, true sale vs. secured loan, substantive consolidation in bankruptcy, fraudulent transfer, tax consequences and compliance with securities laws and ERISA. Opinions are also given by counsel for the Trustees and frequently by counsel to the Underwriter/Placement Agent in regard to tax and securities matters. As indicated above, local counsel opinions may be required as well.

For reasons of structuring and such opinions, in addition to attorneys who are experienced in Securitizations, expertise is required in the areas of securities law, tax law, bankruptcy and the UCC. Expertise is also required in many instances in the substantive laws relating the business of the Originator and the nature of the Receivables.

Re-REMIC: Adding Insult to Injury

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

This article should not be used as a substitute for advice from a licensed professional.

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

see RE-REMICS Deloitte’s Speaking of Securitization_The Re-Remic Phenomenon

Apparently back in June, 2009 Deloitte published an article for general use about the process of “Re-REMIC.” The article corroborates what I have been saying since 2007. First, the original trusts mostly don’t exist anymore. Second the purported (i.e., nonexistent) assets of the trusts are scattered to the winds and the investors have received bonds from a new special purpose vehicle. Third, the investment banks are avoiding disclosure requirements on something that would ordinarily be insisted upon by investors and regulators alike. Fourth, the article introduces the term “static pool information” which corroborates the fact that all other information is fluid — i.e., they are changing the Mortgage Loan Schedule at will. Fifth, all of that means that the investment banks are covering up the fact that the REMIC Trust had no business or assets by using the Re-REMIC process as a further layer to penetrate, much like organized crime does with shell corporations with zero balance accounts used as conduits.

Because of securities law concerns and SEC registration fees, the vast majority of RE-REMICs are done as 144A private placements. The public deals would most likely be deals from dealer inventory with the underlying REMIC bonds coming from prior deals of that same dealer. If a sponsor were to do a RE-REMIC as a public offering, the offering and the applicable disclosures would be subject to the rules applicable to public offerings generally (including those pertaining to liability) for all of the disclosures required in the prospectus by Regulation AB concerning the underlying REMIC securities, including static pool information.

Note that while this is put out by Deloitte, the use of private placements eliminates the need for a SEC level audit — which would have revealed the absence of any transactions conducted by the REMIC Trust.

When the underlying bonds are from deals that were brought to market by unaffiliated issuers, the sponsor of the RE-REMIC would likely not want to be subject to the additional rules and regulations applicable to public offerings covering data for which they have no control over its preparation and for which, as a practical matter, they may be unable to obtain.

For those with the knowledge and stomach to read it, you will see in the article the way that “value” is a process of smoke and mirrors — far away from the assessment of value that the same banks would allow if they were taking any risk instead of acting as an intermediary for multiple entities in parallel transactions.

Yes it’s complicated and convoluted. But that was always the point. The idea is to get people like you to feel that you are in over your heads and jump to the safer conclusion that they must have known what they were doing and it must be as they say. Yes they knew exactly what they were doing which is why they should be prosecuted. No, it isn’t OK. Just look a the results — the banks are bigger and reporting more profits than ever while the rest of the economy is still limping. Why? Because the banks are holding the juice (Trillions of dollars) that was in the economy until they sucked it all out.

Judges seem to think they don’t need to know any of this, that they can keep it simple and come to the right conclusion supportable by the facts. But they don’t have the facts. They have representations of the facts by attorneys, “business records”, and robo-witnesses. The answer is if you want the truth, then you need to drill down much deeper than what the banks are presenting in court.

The interesting question that will haunt auditors is when the truth comes out about the empty trusts that were retired long before a foreclosure was brought in the name of the Trust. The question will be how did the bank auditors not know?

FDIC Employee Quits and Goes Public With Complaint Against Chase, WAMU, Citi and two law firms

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

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

See Eric Mains Federal Complaint

see Mains – Table of Contents.petition 2 transfer

On Monday Eric Mains resigned from his employment with the FDIC. He had just filed a lawsuit against Chase, Citi, WAMU-HE2 Trust, Cynthia Riley, LPS, WAMU, and two law firms. Since he felt he had a conflict of interest, he believed the best course of action was to resign effective immediately.

His lawsuit, told from the prospective of a true insider, reveals in astonishing detail the worst of the practices that have resulted in millions of illegal foreclosures. Some of his allegations cast a dark shadow over claims of Chase Bank on its balance sheet, as reported to the public and the SEC and the reporting of both Chase and Citi as to their potential liability for wrongful foreclosures. If he is right, and he proves these allegations, much of what Chase has reported as its financial condition will vanish from its financial statements and the liability side of the balance sheets of both Citi (as Trustee) and Chase (as servicer and “owner’) will increase exponentially. This may well have the effect of bringing both giants into the position of insufficient reserve capital and force the government to take action against both entities. Elizabeth Warren might have been right when she said that Citi should have been broken into pieces. And the same logic might apply to Chase.

He has also penned the phrase “wild goose Chase” referring to discovery of the true creditors and processing of applications for modification of loans. And he has opened the door for RICO actions against the banks and individuals who did the bidding of the banks as well as the individuals who directed those actions.

His Indiana lawsuit is filed in federal court. He alleges that

1. WAMU was not the actual lender in his own loan
2. That the loan was part of an illegal scheme from the start
3. That his loan was subject to claims of securitization but that those claims were false
4. That the REMIC Trust was never funded and therefore never had the capacity to originate or buy loans
5. That the intermediaries never followed the law or the documents for securitization of his loan
6. That the REMIC Trust never did purchase his loan
7. That Citi was therefore “trustee” for an unfunded trust
8. That Chase never purchased the loans from WAMU
9. That Chase could not have been the legal servicer over the loan because the loan was not in the trust
10. That Chase has filed conflicting claims as to ownership of the loans
11. That the affidavit of Robert Schoppe, whom Mains worked for, as to ownership of the loans was false when it states that Chase owned the loans
12. That the use of WAMU’s name on the loan documents was a false representation
13. That his loan may have been pledged several times by various parties
14. That multiple payments from multiple parties were likely received by Chase and others on account of the Mains “loan” but were never accounted for to the investors whose money was being used as though it was the Banks themselves who were funding originations and a acquisitions of loans
15. That the industry practice was to reap multiple payments on the same loan — and the foreclose as though there was balance due when in fact the balance claimed was entirely incorrect
16. That the investors were defrauded and that foreclosure was part of the fraudulent scheme
17. That Mains name and identity was used without his consent to justify numerous illegal transactions in which the banks repeated huge profits
18. That neither WAMU nor Chase had any rights to collect money from Mains
19. That Citi had no right to enforce a loan it did not own and had no authority to represent the owner(s) of the loan
20. That the modification procedures adopted by the Banks were used intentionally to force the borrower into the illusions a default
21. That Sheila Bair, Chairman of the FDIC, said that Chase and other banks used HAMP modifications as “a kind of predatory lending program.”
22. That Mains stopped making payments when he discovered that there was no known or identified creditor.
23. The despite stopping payments, his loan balance went down, according to statements sent to him.
24. That Chase has routinely violated the terms of consent judgments and settlements with respect to the processing of payments and the filing of foreclosures.
25. That the affidavits filed by persons purportedly representing Chase were neither true nor based upon personal knowledge
26. That the note and mortgage are void from the start.
27. That Mains has found “incontrovertible evidence of fraud, forgery and possibly backdating as well.” (referring to Chase)
28. That the law firms suborned perjury and intentionally made misrepresentations to the Court
29. That Cynthia Riley “is one overwhelmingly productive and multi-talented bank officer. Apparently she was even capable of endorsing hundreds of loan documents a day, and in Mains’ case, even after she was no longer employed by Washington Mutual Bank. [Mains cites to deposition of Riley in JPM Morgan Chase v Orazco Case no 29997 CA, 11th Judicial Circuit, Florida.
30 That Cynthia Riley was laid off in November 2006 and never again employed as a note review examiner by WAMU nor at JP Morgan Chase.
30. That LPS (now Black Knight) owns and operates LPS Desktop Software, which was used to create false documents to be executed by LPS employees for recording in the Offices of the Indiana County recorder.
31. That the false documents in the mains case were created by LPS employee Jodi Sobotta and signed by her with no authority to do so.
32. Neither the notary nor the LPS employee had any real documents nor knowledge when they signed and notarized the documents used against Mains.
33. Chase and its lawyer pursued the foreclosure with full knowledge that the assignment was fraudulent and forged.
34. That LPS was established as an intermediary to provide “plausible deniability” to Chase and others who used LPS.
35. That the law firms also represented LPS in a blatant conflict of interest and with knowledge of LPS fraud and forgery.

Some Quotes form the Complaint:

“Mains perspective on this case is a rather unique one, as Main is an employee of the FDIC (hereinafter, FDIC) who worked in the Dallas field office of the FDIC in the Division of Resolutions and Receiverships (hereinafter DRR), said division which was the one responsible for closing WAMU and acting as its receiver. Mains worked with one Robert Schoppe in his division, whom the defendant Chase Bank often cites to when pulling out an affidavit Robert signed. This affidavit states that Chase Bank had purchased “certain assets and liabilities” of WAMU in the purchase transaction from the FDIC as receiver for WAMU in 2008. Chase Bank uses this affidavit ad museum to convince the court system in foreclosure cases that this affidavit somehow proves that Chase Bank purchased “every conceivable asset” of WAMU, so it must have standing in all cases involving homeowner loans originated through WAMU, or to put it simply that this proves Chase became a holder with rights to enforce or a holder in due course of the loan as defined by the Uniform Commercial Code. Antithetically, when it wants to sue the FDIC for a billion dollars… due to mounting expenses from the WAMU purchase transaction, it complains that the purchase agreement it signed didn’t really entail the purchase of “every asset and liability” of WAMU… Chase Bank claims this when it is to their advantage in a lawsuit to do so.

Mains worked as team leader in the DRR Dallas field office

[The] violation of REMIC trust rules occurred because the entities involved, for reasons of control, speed of transaction, and to hide what they were actually doing with the investors money

Unfortunately for the investors, many of the banks involved in the securitization process (like Wahoo) failed to perform the securitizations properly, hence as mentioned above, the securitizations were botched and ineffective as to passing ownership of the notes or underlying collateral. The loans purchased were not purchased THROUGH the REMIC. … The REMIC trust entity must be the one actually purchasing the mortgages directly.

This violation of REMIC trust rules occurred because the entities involved, for reasons of control, speed of transaction, and to hide what they were actually doing with the investors funds once received, held the investor funds in the “lender” banks owned subsidiary accounts, instead of funding the REMIC trusts with the money so that the trust could then purchase the loan from the “lender”, making it an actual buy and sell transaction.”

Rockwell P. Ludden, Esq. — A Lawyer who gets it on Securitization and Mortgages

see FORECLOSURE, SECURITIZATION DON’T MIX ROCKY&#39S+ARTICLE+in+the+CAPE+COD+TIMES+February+21,+2015

As I write this, I have no recall of Mr. Ludden before today. BUT his article in of all places, the Cape Cod Times, struck me as astonishing in its concise description of the illegal foreclosures that are skimming past Judges desks with hardly a look much less the usually required judicial scrutiny. He says

No one should have the legal right to take your home merely by winking and nodding their way around a significant flaw in the securitization model and whatever burrs it may leave on the industry’s saddle. …

Is there anyone with a present contractual connection to you or the loan who has actually suffered a default? If not, any… foreclosure begins to bear an uncanny resemblance to double dipping.

It is time for Judges to dust off the principle of fundamental fairness that lies at the heart of our legal system, demand a level playing field, and stand behind alternatives to foreclosure that serve the legitimate interests of homeowner and industry alike.

His article is both insightful and concise, which is more than I can say for some of the things that I have written at length. And I guess if you are in the Cape Cod area it probably would be a good idea to contact him at rpl@luddenkramerlaw.com. He pierces through layers upon layers of subterfuge by the financial industry and comes up with the right conclusion — separation not just of note and mortgage — but more importantly the separation between the note and the ultimate certificate that spells out the rights of a creditor to repayment and the rights of anonymous individuals and entities to foreclose. In securitization practice the note ceases to exist.

He correctly concludes that the assignments (and I would add endorsements and powers of attorney) are a sham, designed to conceal basic flaws in the entire securitization model. The only thing I would add is something that has not quite made it to the surface of these chaotic waters — that the money from the investors never made it into the trust — something that is perfectly consistent with ignoring the securitization model and the securitization documents.

The ‘assignment’ creates the appearance of [the] missing connection. But it is all hogwash, the only discernible purpose of which is to grease the skids for an illegal foreclosure. It is done long after the Trust has closed its doors. [referring to both the cutoff date and the fact that the trust actually does not ever get to own the debt, loan, note or mortgage]

The banks kept the money and assigned the losses to the investors. Then they bet on the losses and kept the profits from their intentionally watered down underwriting practices. Then they stole the identity of the borrowers and the investors and bought insurance that covered “losses” that were never incurred by the named insured — the Banks. The family resemblance to Ponzi scheme seems closer than mere double dipping in an infinite scheme of dipping into the funds of thousands of institutional investors and into the lives of millions of homeowners.

see also A 21st Century Trust Indenture Act?

posted by Adam Levitin

MERS Assignments VOID

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

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

see http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/mers-auroraslammed.pdf
While there are a number of cases that discuss the role of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), this tells the story in the shortest amount of time. MERS was only a nominee to track the off-record claims from multiple parties participating in what we call the securitization of loans. It now appears that the securitization in most cases never took place but the banks and their affiliates are foreclosing in the name of REMIC trusts anyway, relying on “presumptions” to “prove” that the Trust actually purchased and took possession of the alleged loan. In every case I know of  where the homeowner was allowed to probe deeply into the issues of whether the Trust actually received the loan, it has either been determined that the Trust didn’t own the loan, or the case was settled before the court could announce that ruling.

Decided in April of last year, this case slams Aurora, who was and remains one of the worst offenders in the category of fraudulent foreclosures. The Court decided that since the basis of the claim was an assignment from MERS who had no interest int he debt, note or mortgage, there were no “successors.” This logic is irrefutable. And as regular readers know from reading this blog I believe the same logic applies to any other party who has no interest in the debt, note or mortgage — like an unfunded “originator” whose name appears on not only the Mortgage, like MERS, but also on the note.

Judges have trouble with that analysis because in their minds they think the homeowner is trying to get a free house. Even if that were true, it doesn’t change the correct application of law. But the opposite is true. The homeowner is trying to stop the foreclosing party from getting a free house and the homeowner is trying  to find his creditor. I actually had a judge yesterday rule that the source of funds, ownership and balance was essentially irrelevant. Discovery on nearly all issues was blocked by his ruling, leaving the trial to be a very short affair since the defenses have been eliminated by that Judge by express ruling.

The attorney representing the bank basically argued that the case was simple and that anything that happened prior to the alleged default was also irrelevant. The Judge agreed. So when a trial judge makes such rulings, he or she is basically narrowing the issue down to when we were just starting out in 2007 in what I call the dark ages. The trial becomes mostly clerical in which the only relevant issues are whether the homeowner received a loan and whether the homeowner stopped paying. All other issues are treated as irrelevant defenses, including the behavior of the “servicer” whose authority cannot be questioned (because of the presumption raised by an apparently facially valid instrument of virtually ANY sort).

The moral of the story is persistence and appeal. I believe that such rulings are reversible potentially even as interlocutory appeals as to affirmative defenses and discovery. If anyone files a lawsuit they should be required to answer all potential questions about that that lawsuit in good faith. That is what discovery is for. The strategy of moving to strike affirmative defenses is meant to cut off discovery to the point where no defenses can be raised or proven. And cutting off discovery is what the foreclosers need to do or they will face sanctions, charges of fraud, perjury and worse when the real facts are revealed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,250 other followers

%d bloggers like this: