Banks Fighting Subpoenas From FHFA Over Access to Loan Files

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

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

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

WHAT IF THE LOANS WERE NOT ACTUALLY SECURITIZED?

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

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

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

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

foreclosureblues.wordpress.com

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

Loan File Issue Brought to Forefront By FHFA Subpoena

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

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

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

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

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

The fact that servicers and trustees have been stonewalling even these

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

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

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

bald intransigence displayed by these financial institutions. After

all, they generally have clear contractual obligations requiring them

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

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

these private institutions would have should the dispute wind up in

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

suits.

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

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

Posted by Isaac Gradman at 3:46 PM

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.

 

WHY JOIN ORIGINATOR AND THE PARTY WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE ILLEGAL TABLE FUNDED LOAN

Amongst the cases I review and manage, the question was raised by one of the homeowners as to why I insisted on holding both the originator and subsequent intermediaries in the alleged securitization chain and/or table-funded loan where both the party alleging having (1) the capacity to sue see SEC Corroborates Livinglies Position on Third Party Payment While Texas BKR Judge Disallows Assignments After Cut-Off Date, (2) the standing to sue and/or the authority to initiate foreclosures and (3) financial injury where they allege sale or assignment of the note. The reason is simple from a tactical and legal point of view. I wish to close out their options to keep moving the goal posts.

Here is the answer I wrote to the customer, whose property is located in a judicial state. This particular person is being pro-active — always a wise choice — in that he has been making his payments, was told to to stop making payments if he wanted a modification which he did initially and then changed his mind and reinstated, and remains convinced he was the victim of various forms of fraud and crimes including false Appraisals of the supposedly fair market value of the property at the time of the loan closing or the alleged loan closing. His goal is not a free house. His goal is to pursue any rights you might have for modification or settlement of his claims with respect to the illusion of a loan closing and the office of a closing agent. As any reader of this blog knows, it is my opinion that any such loan closing was in fact an illusion and that all the parties participating in that illusion were paid actors pretending to be something they were not —  less creating plausible deniability for any of the improper actions of the intermediaries at the “loan closing.”

There is a reason why I insist on continuing the joinder of those two defendants. Embrace wants to be dismissed out with prejudice because it says that sold the loan to Wells. I want to say that they didn’t sell the loan to Wells.  If I prevail on that point then Wells Fargo is out as a plaintiff in any foreclosure they might file, and potentially out as a servicer since they might not be able to show any authority.  If that is the case then they owe you an accounting for all of the money they collected from you and a statement of what they did with the money that they collected from you. You might well have a cause of action against Wells Fargo for taking money under false pretenses.

 If I don’t Prevail on that point and somehow they are able to show that Wells Fargo paid for the loan and owns the loan by virtue of that payment, then Embrace is still a proper party in the action because they are the owner of record of a mortgage based on a note that was never funded by Embrace.  The issue here is whether or not the mortgage was transferred with the debt and that issue is tied closely with the issue of securitization, which both of them deny. I believe that I will be able to show that the loan is subject to claims of securitization on behalf of a loan pool that may never have existed or which might not exist now.  and if I am able to show that the loan pool was never funded and therefore could never have paid for the loan then the apparent authority of both defendants is eviscerated.

  Either way, I don’t want to let either of them out of the litigation quite yet.  If we prevail on the question of whether or not there was an actual sale and the sale was authorized (see my blog article from yesterday) then Embrace is the only party left on record in the recording office. At that point I would drill down on them to see whether or not they can show that they fulfill their part of the bargain with you, to wit: that you sign a note and they give you adequate disclosure under the law and they fund a loan to you. It is my position that they did not give adequate disclosure and that they did not fund a loan to you even if the loan was not securitized. The best they can say is that this was a table funded loan which is according to Reg Z of the Federal Reserve a predatory loan  per se if it was part of a pattern of conduct.

 Given the statistics and information we have about both defendants it is my opinion that the chances are 96% that the loan was allegedly sold into the secondary market where it is the subject of a potential claim from an asset pool. The problem I wish to reveal here is that the entire chain of ownership collapses on itself. The other problem that I want to addressed is who actually received the money that you pay every month and what did they do with it (who did they pay).  the strategy here is to show that regardless of whether or not a claim of securitization exists, there were co-obligors (Wells Fargo),  insurance payments and proceeds of credit default swaps and multiple resales all of which should be applied against the amount owed to the real creditor, whoever that might be, thus reducing the loan receivable.

 If I can tie the loan receivable to one which derives its value from the alleged loan made to you, even if the originator paid for it, then there is a strong argument for agency and allocation of receipts under which the payment of monthly payments and the receipt of insurance proceeds and the proceeds from other obligors (including but not limited to counterparties on credit default swaps) were received and kept, like in the Credit Suisse case. 

From that point forward it is a simple accounting task to allocate third-party receipts of insurance and hedge money to the benefit of the investors whether they received it or not. The auditing standards under the rules of the financial accounting standards Board would require a further analysis and allocation of the money received —  specifically the reduction of the loan receivable or bond receivable held by the investors (directly if the REMIC trust was ignored or indirectly if the agents for the trust purchased insurance and hedge products, the proceeds of which should have been credited to the investors.

 If the investors are the real creditors than the amount that they are entitled to have repaid to them does not exceed the amount they advanced. It practically goes without saying that if the money advanced from investors was based on their reasonable belief that they were acquiring title to the loans funded by the money advanced by the investors, they should recover part or all of their investment to the extent that the other players (see the SEC order against Credit Suisse) paid for insurance and hedge products using the money of the investors and kept the proceeds for themselves —-  thus explaining rising reports of profits in the banks who are supposedly merely intermediaries in the conduct of commerce which was in sharp decline.

 In the end, under a series of unjust enrichment and other common-law actions, as well as the requirements of statute and the terms of the promissory note executed by the borrower, all money received in that manner should reduce the principal balance due from the borrower because the creditor has already been paid either directly or indirectly through its agents who were either authorized or possessed of apparent authority.

In fact , the great likelihood is that the banks received substantial overpayments amounting to multiples of the original principal amount of the loan.  According to both law and the terms of the proposed agreement between the borrower and the apparent lender, subject to the terms of the documents themselves as well as state and federal law, the borrower is entitled to recover all such undisclosed payments and receipts which are defined under the truth in lending act as “compensation.”

 Thus while the creditors not entitled to any more recovery than the amount advanced under an alleged loan, the borrower is entitled to full recovery of all money paid in connection with or related to the loan received by the borrower, regardless of the original source of the loan and any agreements between the intermediaries in the alleged securitization chain that do not have the signature of the borrower on them. The reason is public policy. While securitization was not considered in the original passage of laws  it was the overreaching by banks to the disadvantage of consumers and borrowers that was sought to be discouraged by penalties that would be so great as to prevent the practice altogether.

 Usually it is money that is taken under false pretenses and the illusion of securitization claims is no exception. But in the case of the borrower it is the signature of the borrower that was obtained under the false pretenses that  the party obtaining the borrower’s signature. The consideration was the money advanced by an unrelated party tot he transaction (investor) who thought their money was first going through a REMIC trust that would give them certain tax advantages.

Regards

Neil

 Garfield, Gwaltney, Kelley & White

4832 Kerry Forest Parkway, Suite B

Tallahassee, Florida 32309

(850) 765-1236

Notice of Violation Under California Bill of Rights

“If we accept the Bank’s argument, then we are creating new law. Under the new law a borrower would owe money to a non-creditor simply because the non-creditor procured the borrower’s signature by false pretenses. The actual lender would be unable to retrieve money paid to the fake lender and the borrower would receive credit for neither his own payments nor any payment by a third party on the borrower’s behalf.” Neil F Garfield, livinglies.me

CHECK OUT OUR DECEMBER SPECIAL!

What’s the Next Step? Consult with Neil Garfield

For assistance with presenting a case for wrongful foreclosure, please call 520-405-1688, customer service, who will put you in touch with an attorney in the states of Florida, California, Ohio, and Nevada. (NOTE: Chapter 11 may be easier than you think).

Barry Fagan submitted the Notice below.

Editor’s Notes: Fagan’s Notice gives a good summary of the applicable provisions of the Bill of Rights recently passed by California. The only thing I would add to the demands is a copy of all wire transfer receipts, wire transfer instructions or other indicia of funding or buying the loans. everything I am getting indicates that in most cases they can’t come up with it.

If you went into Chase and applied for a loan and they approved your application but didn’t fund it, you wouldn’t expect Chase to be able to sue you or start foreclosure proceedings for a loan they never funded. It’s called lack of consideration.

If you actually got the loan from BofA but they forgot to have you sign papers, you would still owe the money to them but it wouldn’t be secured because there was no mortgage lien recorded in their name. And BofA would have a thing or two to say to Chase about who is the real creditor — either the one or advanced the money or the one who got documents fraudulently or wrongfully obtained.

So then comes the question of whether Chase could assign their note and lien rights to BofA. If TILA disclosures had been made showing the relationship between the two banks, it might be possible to do so. But in these closings, the actual identity of the creditor (source of funds) was actively hidden from the borrower.

Thus we have a simple proposition to be decided in the appellate and trial courts: can a party who obtains signed loan documentation including a note and mortgage perfect the lien they recorded in the absence of any consideration. The floodgates for fraud would open wide if the answer were yes.

If the answer is NO, then the origination documents and all assignments, indorsements, transfers and allonges emanating from the original transaction without consideration are void. AND if each assignment or transfer recites that it is for value received, and they too had no money exchange hands thus producing lack of consideration, then they cannot even begin to assert themselves as a BFP (Bona Fide Purchaser for value without notice). The part about “without notice” is going to be difficult to sustain in proof since this was a pattern of table funded loans deemed “predatory per se” by Reg Z.

The reason they diverted the document ownership away from the creditor who actually advanced the money was to create the appearance of third party ownership (and transfers, which was why MERS was created) in the documentary chain arising out of the original of the non-existent loan (i.e., no money exchanged hands pursuant to the recitals on the note and mortgage as between the payor and payee). They needed the appearance of ownership was to create the appearance of an ownership and insurable interest.

Thus even though the money did not come from the originator, the aggregator or even the Master Servicer or Trustee of the pool, affiliates of the investment bank who underwrote and sold bogus mortgage bonds, were able (as “owners”) to purchase insurance, credit default swaps, and receive bailouts because they could “document” that they had lost money even though the reality was that the the third party source of funding, and the real creditors were actual parties suffering the loss.

Had those windfall distributions been applied to balances due to the owners of the mortgage bonds, the balance due from the bond would have been correspondingly reduced. AND if the balance due to the creditor had been reduced or paid in full, then the homeowner/borrower’s obligation to that creditor would have been extinguished entitling the homeowner to receipt of a note paid in full and a release of the mortgage lien (or at least cooperation in nullification of the imperfect mortgage lien).

PRACTICE TIP: Don’t just go after the documents that talk about the transaction by which they claim a liability exists from the borrower to one or more pretender lenders. Push for proof of payment in discovery and don’t be afraid to deny the debt, the note or the mortgage.

In oral argument before the Judge, when he or she asks whether you are contesting the note and mortgage, the answer is yes. When asked whether you are contesting the liability, the answer is yes – and resist the temptation to say why. The less said the better. This is why it is better preempt the pretender lenders with your own suit — because all allegations in the complaint must be taken as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss.

Don’t get trapped into disclosing your evidence in a motion to dismiss. If it is set for a motion to dismiss the sole question before the court is whether your lawsuit contains a short plain statement of ultimate facts upon which relief could be granted and all allegations you make must be assumed to be true. When opposing counsel starts to offer facts, you should object reminding the Judge that this is a motion to dismiss, it is not a motion for summary judgment and there are no facts in the record to corroborate the proffer by opposing counsel.

From Barry Fagan:

Re:  Notice of “Material Violations” under California’s Newly Enacted Homeowners Bill of Rights pursuant to California Civil Code sections, 2923.55, 2924.12, and 2924.17.
See attached and below

Reference is made to Wells Fargo’s (“Defendant”) December 13, 2012 response to Barry Fagan’s (“Plaintiff”) October 25, 2012 request for copies of the following:

(i)           A copy of the borrower’s promissory note or other evidence of indebtedness.

(ii)         A copy of the borrower’s deed of trust or mortgage.

(iii)       A copy of any assignment, if applicable, of the borrower’s mortgage or deed of trust required to demonstrate the right of the mortgage servicer to foreclose.

(iv)        A copy of the borrower’s payment history since the borrower was last less than 60 days past due.

Please be advised that I find Defendant’s response to be woefully defective. This letter is being sent pursuant to my statutory obligation to “meet and confer” with you concerning the defects before bringing an action to enjoin any future foreclosure pursuant to Civil Code § 2924.12.

Defendant’s are in violation of both the notice and standing requirements of California law, and the California newly enacted Homeowner Bill of Rights (“HBR”). In July 2012, California enacted the Homeowner Bill of Rights (“HBR”). Among other things, the HBR authorizes private civil suits to enjoin foreclosure by entities that record or file notices of default or other documentsfalsely claiming the right to foreclose. Civil Code § 2923.55 requires a servicer to provide borrowers with their note and certain other documents, if the borrowers request them.

Civil Code § 2924.17 requires any notice of default, notice of sale, assignment of deed of trust, or substitution of trustee recorded on behalf of a servicer in connection with a foreclosure, or any declaration or affidavit filed in any court regarding a foreclosure, to be “accurate and complete and supported by competent and reliable evidence.” It further requires the servicer to ensure it has reviewed competent and reliable evidence to substantiate the borrower’s default and the right to foreclose.

Civil Code § 2924.12 authorizes actions to enjoin foreclosures, or for damages after foreclosure, for breaches of §§ 2923.55 or 2924.17. This right of private action is “in addition to and independent of any other rights, remedies, or procedures under any other law.  Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, limit, or negate any other rights, remedies, or procedures provided by law.” Civil Code § 2924.12(h). Any Notice of Default, or Substitution of Trustee recorded on Plaintiffs’ real property based upon a fraudulent and forged Deed of Trust shall be considered a “Material Violation”, thus triggering the injunctive relief provisions of Civil Code § 2924.12 & § 2924.17(a) (b).

I therefore demand that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. provide Barry Fagan with the UNALTERED original Deed of Trust along with the ORIGINAL Note, as the ones provided by Kutak Rock LLP on October 13, 2011 to Ronsin Copy Service were both photo-shopped and fraudulent fabrications of the original documents, thus not the originals as ordered to be produced by Judge Tarle under LASC case number SC112044. Attached hereto and made a part hereof is the October 13, 2011 Ronsin Copy Service Declaration with copies of the altered and photo-shopped Note and Deed of Trust concerning real property located at Roca Chica Dr. Malibu, CA 90265.

Judge Karlan under LASC case number SC117023 “DENIED” Wells Fargo’s Request for Judicial Notice of the very same Deed of Trust, Notice of Default, Substitution of Trustee and the Notice of Rescission concerning real property located at Roca Chica Dr. Malibu, CA 90265.
Attached hereto and made a part hereof is the relevant excerpt of Judge Karlan’s October 23, 2012 Court Order along with a copy of Wells Fargo’s Request for Judicial Notice of those very same documents. Court Order: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE “DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IS DENIED AS TO EXHIBITS A, B, C, D, K, L, & M.” 

As a result of the above stated facts, please be advised that the fraudulently altered deed of trust and photo-shopped Note that you claim to have been previously provided to Barry Fagan shall not be considered in compliance with section 2923.55 and therefore Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. has committed a “Material Violation” under California’s Newly Enacted Homeowners Bill of Rights pursuant to Civil Code sections, 2923.55, 2924.12, and 2924.17 (a) (b).

Please govern yourselves accordingly.

Regards,

/s/Barry Fagan

Barry S. Fagan Esq.

Thank you.

Barry S. Fagan Esq.
PO Box 1213, Malibu, CA 90265-1213
[T] +1.310.717.1790 – [F] +1.310.456.6447

%d bloggers like this: