Tag Archives: 424(b)(5) prospectus

When Spokeo rears its ugly head

(BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED)–The author of this post is a paralegal and consultant to trial attorneys and covers this case in his book, The FDCPA, Debt Collection and Foreclosures, an in-depth analysis of the paradigm shift in debt collection and foreclosure defense litigation strategies. DISCLAIMER: The opinions and case analysis expressed are that of his own and do not constitute legal advice.

Available at CloudedTitles.com

Here we go again … another case in federal appeals court … another recognized attempt by a homeowner that failed when applied to the Spokeo v. Robins case handed down by the United States Supreme Court, 578 U.S. 330 (2016). See the case below:

While the case specifically denotes cases applicable to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, it has been judicially recognized in all 50 states as being the benchmark for proof of injury and raises the bar for such.

The case in chief is Foster v. PNC Bank, N.A. and wouldn’t you know it … Spokeo got tossed in for good measure because the homeowner (Foster) relied solely on his affidavit and couldn’t prove causation. See the case below:

To get to the nuts and bolts of Spokeo and how it was applied to this case, see pages 10-11 of the Foster ruling.

Page 11 of the Foster ruling clearly identifies that Foster lacks standing because the injury he is trying to prove happened is not fairly traceable and under Spokeo, it has to be an actual injury-in-fact! There’s no getting around this if you want Article III standing to pursue such a case.

It looks as if this case could have been done pro se. Most pro se cases fail because of 3 reasons: (1) lack of understanding and application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) lack of understanding of how case law should be applied; and (3) evidence based on emotion and not facts supported by evidence. Once you clearly read this case, you might understand why the author of this post thinks that way.

NOW … Why can’t Spokeo be applied to foreclosure cases?

Why can’t homeowners make the bank or REMIC Trust prove it suffered a concrete injury-in-fact under Spokeo? That question posits multiple answers because there is specific contract law involved.

Based on paralegal-level research, bringing any kind of claim against a creditor should be entertained BEFORE the real problems begin (like getting a notice of default). This author blames homeowners for not constantly checking their public land records for suspect documents, especially in the cases of REMIC trusts, wherein third-party document mills generally crank out manufactured documents that attempt to memorialize when a particular loan (mortgage or deed of trust and note) was actually conveyed into a REMIC trust pool. Sadly, most of the documents creep their way into the public record just before the foreclosure starts. And no one finds that just a little suspicious?

Even more unfortunate, because of the way the deck is stacked in court, judges don’t like giving homeowners free houses just because they come running and screaming into court with a two-dozen (or 200) page complaint, filled with emotion, conjecture and nothing concrete to back it up with, or, in the alternative, attempt to use all that wasted space to try to educate a judge towards their point of view with no attached exhibits or any other evidentiary process to back it up. This author has seen this in hundreds of cases he has reviewed, even by attorneys who thought they were good foreclosure mill attorneys (they miss stuff too)!

The key here, especially in REMIC trust cases (most of which are formed in New York or Delaware), there are commonalities that typically get overlooked and case law can and should be applied whenever possible to support whatever argument is being made. Unfortunately, many pro se litigants miss that opportunity and just continue to rant because they think they were unfairly treated by their mortgage loan servicer, who is the real party behind the foreclosure … not the closed REMIC. What? The REMIC was closed? When?

Does anyone bother to read the REMIC’s 424(b)(5) Prospectus and attempt to tie information into their cases? This author hasn’t seen much evidence of that lately because attorneys dealing in foreclosures believe the judge doesn’t care what happened to the loan if it went into a REMIC trust. This is where knowing how to pick your battles makes all the sense in the world. The Prospectus analysis in of itself can be extremely daunting and time consuming, unless you know where to look. Then you have to apply what you’ve discovered to your discovery to make sure what you think you know can stick in a court of law. It’s called securitization failure.

The bottom line however, is whether the REMIC settled with its investors at any point in time in its history or whether the mortgage loan servicer actually performed under the Prospectus agreement and made the payments of principal and interest as identified under the ADVANCES section of the REMIC’s own governing regulations. If the payments were made by the servicer (whether the Borrower paid them or not) … then who has suffered actual Article III concrete injury-in-fact under Spokeo. There’s the rub.

If the servicer has been paying the certificate holders and the action is being brought on behalf of the certificate holders based on borrower default … how’s that possible? The servicer has paid the monthly payments to the certificate holders, so where’s the concrete injury-in-fact? The borrower isn’t in default if this is happening, are they? Who brings that up in court? Who asks the court to determine an injury-in-fact? Hmmm.

Because the bank is trying to foreclose, the courts automatically assume they own the loan; otherwise, why would they be filing a foreclosure action in the first place?

There’s the other rub. If the case involves a REMIC trust, this author believes with a certainty that the mortgage loan servicer is playing “lender” and claiming it has the right to foreclose when it can’t prove actual concrete injury-in-fact based on contract law because it doesn’t have a contract with the homeowner. Yet, bank’s attorneys come into court and misrepresent those facts all the time in an attempt to create standing for a fictitious plaintiff (one that no longer exists in most cases).

Yep, none of this seems fair, does it? But, as any good paralegal can tell you, all of our collective work is research and if you don’t take the time to do it, you can’t prove anything and your case is dead in the water before you even get started.

Then there’s the other faux pas … suing everything under the sun because they’re identified with the REMIC. Example: MERS. Big waste of time. MERS is owned by the same company that owns the NYSE. Where do you think you fit into that financial scheme of things. MERS has more money than any pro se or attorney-supported litigant out there and will outspend you and give you nothing. Besides, from a paralegal’s standpoint, it adds well more to the costs of processing a case because of service issues, actual service of process, filing responses and memorandums for every single defendant named. So what if MERS was used to electronically facilitate the transfer of securitized mortgage loans. Case law on MERS is so diverse and scattered among the states and federal circuits even the U.S. Supreme Court won’t entertain looking at MERS-related cases 99.9% of the time.

Declaratory Relief Actions

This is why this author likes declaratory relief actions. While these types of actions are discretionary at the federal level, state court judges will normally entertain them. You’re asking for a determination on a question, not a final ruling. To get to the final ruling, you have to have your questions answered, enough to prove your allegations contained a factual basis, as determined by the court. This paralegal and consultant always sees better results when dec relief actions come early and go after specific targets and not just a bunch of ballyhoo on paper. Since most judges are being ordered to clear dockets, does your case really belong in foreclosure court where all the judge sees you as is a deadbeat? Or would it be better if you were in a county court of law where the judge wasn’t occupied with foreclosure as the main issue? This author has seen successes with the latter of the two modes.

Yet homeowners wait until everything is “around their ankles” before they act. The author blames this on the lack of legal education. Spokeo (since its 2016 ruling), has been wielded like a two-edged sword, mostly in favor of the lenders. In closing, this means one would have to spend serious time doing research and digging up the facts to build an actual case. Spokeo is law. Spokeo is not emotion. People would do themselves a big favor by studying the law, especially tort law. Prosser and Keeton on Torts, 5th Edition would be a great start.

The author is also nationally-syndicated talk show host on The Power Hour.

2 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

ADVANCES, explained

(OP-ED) — The author of this post is a consultant and paralegal to attorneys practicing in foreclosure defense matters and their related fields and thus, the information offered in this post should be considered research for educational purposes only and not the rendering of legal advice.

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” (Biblical quote in part)

Most homeowners that retain counsel to look into matters involving foreclosure only scrape the tip of the iceberg when it comes to dealing with REMIC trusts. A REMIC (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit) is a common law trust set up by a hedge fund that is primarily funded by “certificate holders”. The “certificate holders” are investors or investment groups that buy securities from the hedge fund. The securities are created from lists of mortgage loans, all pooled together in a package, that are sold to investors, who receive shares (certificates) which represent their stake in the matter. The amount of “shares” given to the certificate holders depends on the amount of funding they’ve contributed to the REMIC trust and to which tranche they purchased certificates in (some tranches are riskier than others, by design). It’s much like getting stock certificates when you buy stock in a company on Wall Street, especially when it comes to the risk of loss.

Each REMIC trust has a Master Servicer by design. REMIC trusts can also incorporate mortgage loan servicers and sub-servicers if it so deems, for the purposes of collecting the monthly mortgage payments from borrowers.

Each REMIC trust has a Cut-Off Date, where all paperwork that is represented as “filed” with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission via the Trustee of the Trust, has to be forwarded to the Trustee prior to the closing of the Trust.

Each REMIC trust has a Closing Date, in which the documents have all been tendered to the Trustee of the Trust. The Trustee then issues the certificates to the certificate holders, who then receive principal and interest payments from the servicer every month. The IRS refers to the Closing Date as the “Start-Up Date” of the trust, when the trust officially is closed for business and exists according to law for one (1) year.

Each REMIC trust has a Distribution Date … and this is important … because whether or not the borrower makes a payment or not … the servicer is required to advance proceeds from the sums collected from all of the borrowers, to the certificate holders in the form of principal and interest payments. The Distribution Date is generally somewhere between the 20th and 25th of every month, according to the majority of REMIC trust filings this author has reviewed.

The Certificate Holders are buying securities, which are batches of securitized loans that have all been pooled together into a CDO (Collateralized Debt Obligation).

Each REMIC has an ADVANCES section, which explains in detail how the mortgage loan servicers pay the certificate holders on the Distribution Date, whether the Borrowers make their mortgage payments or not.

When the Borrowers go to their respective “corresponding lenders” (part of the table-funding process), that lender checked to see whether the Borrowers’ credit scores were worthy of their best, low-interest loans. If the borrower’s credit scores were “shitty”, they generally ended up in subprime loan pools, which the government now frowns on lender’s from making. These were the riskiest loans made, thus, more attractive to investors because of the high-interest returns they would get on their certificates (from playing in the secondary markets).

Fast Forward to the Foreclosure Process

Now that it’s been simply explained how the system came into play, one must also understand that the servicers continue to collect for the certificate holders once the trusts have hit their one-year mark and expire. When the borrowers have begun to make payments on their mortgage loans, they are told to make at least 3 payments. Why?

Because it takes at least 3 payments to get the entire securities package set into motion. But wait! The Closing Date stated that (in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for each REMIC trust) that all paperwork had to be “in” to the Trustee by that time, as the Trustee was issuing certificates to the certificate holders! The idea of being able to pay for at least 3 months was designed to send a false representation to investors that the loans were “good”, when the originators knew the “sewer would back up” at a point in time in the future.

The lenders also know that because of most of the predatory loans they issued, they knew already that the default rate was going to be higher because these loans weren’t really “qualified” loans under the law. The loan originators went to various insurance companies and purchased default insurance to guarantee that if the borrower defaulted, the certificate holders would be paid the value of their shares via the default insurance payment.

If a foreclosure indeed occurred … and knowing that the default insurance (and other means of reimbursement vehicles were initiated, such as credit default swaps, PMI, LPMI, MIP, title insurance, etc.) would pay out after Day 91 of the Borrowers’ default on their loans … the certificate holders were paid, assumedly by the servicer, right?

How then, did the certificate holders (for which the trustee represents to the court or in the notices of default at the time of the foreclosure) suffer financial harm? How did they suffer an actual injury-in-fact if they were being paid by the mortgage loan servicers every month?

When a borrower files suit against the servicer and the REMIC trust, they completely miss the boat on Injury-in-fact (see the article on Lessons Learned from Spokeo on this blog site) issues. By that time, a plethora of questionable documents have been recorded in the land records in the county where the subject property is located. These documents, suspiciously referred to as Assignment of Mortgage or Assignment of Deed of Trust, were more than likely generated by the mortgage loan servicers themselves or through third-party document mills, as a means of “batting clean-up” in the land records. These assignments all attempt to link the chain of title to the current alleged lien holder, albeit, questionably.

Who is the damaged party here?

Various attorneys that this author has consulted have all maintained that 99.9% of the foreclosures involving REMIC trusts are illegal. In California, notices are given to prospective bidders that they are only bidding on the lien and not the property itself. After the foreclosure occurs, the Trustee or the law firm allegedly representing it, issue a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale. The problem here is … the Trustee is deeding the land over to the new buyer, who, if they would have read the damned sale notice, were only buying the lien and not the property itself! Judges gloss over all this because they don’t give a shit about the borrower. Judges can’t even be bothered to apply the law as it’s written, which is why America has appellate courts. The problem is, most borrowers can’t afford to even litigate the foreclosure let alone the appellate phase of the matter. The judges know this, which is why they don’t give a shit how they rule. Seldom do you ever find an honest judge that actually reads, understands the facts at hand and rules accordingly. The honest judges even have a hard time sifting through the facts if the borrower’s attorney doesn’t understand who he’s litigating against and why.

If the borrower’s attorney were to simply ask the court: “Your Honor, if my client’s house is sold on the courthouse steps today, who gets the money?”, the judge would then inquire of the foreclosing lender’s attorney WHO is being represented here. The Plaintiff’s attorney will always acknowledge that he represents the Plaintiff, when the Plaintiff’s attorney knows damned well he’s being paid by the mortgage loan servicer, who is coming to court under stealth, in the name of the lender (REMIC trust) to steal the house to reimburse itself for the payments.

When the Borrower’s attorney goes to court, the attorney and his client are faced with the submission of a payment history from the servicer showing the borrower’s history of mortgage loan payments and when they stopped making them. The Plaintiff bank then asserts that since that date, the certificate holders haven’t received payments, which is false. The servicer has been paying them all along and the servicer, the real party behind the foreclosure action, has failed to tender the payment history, post-borrower-payments made. The servicer should be required to disclose ALL payments made to the certificate holders of the REMIC trust, because the Trustee is claiming that the payments the borrower was making were the only payments made to the certificate holders, which is also false.

The servicer is the real party in interest here … and they’re in court trying to recover all of their payments … and then some. When they sell the home, they are going to recoup tens of thousands of dollars, in addition to the booty collected through the default insurance and all of the other payoff methods. In fact, mortgage loan servicing is big business and it’s a dirty one too. Not one mortgage loan servicer that has been “taken to task” to the fullest extent of the law (in court) has come away with clean hands; that is, if the attorneys who are litigating for the borrowers actually know what they’re doing.

The borrower does not have a contract with the mortgage loan servicer!

If this is the case, then what is the servicer doing in court, claiming to represent a closed REMIC trust, after the trust and the servicer have been paid multiple times over by all of the claimed default mechanisms?

This is where it’s estimated that a $500,000 mortgage loan nets the securitized trust $7,000,000 dollars. You read that right! Given all of the payouts the servicer got after Day 91, the certificate holders were all made whole. How then were the certificate holders damaged? They have no standing to come into court. They got away with the foreclosure because of borrower ignorance.

When the first run of foreclosures occurred in 2009-2014, 97.5% of the borrowers served with notices packed up their belongings and ran. Two (2%) percent of them attempted to deal with the mess in court themselves and got their asses handed to them. The other point 5 percent (0.5%) retained attorneys or were successful pro se because they bothered to do their research … but sadly, because of the way the system is “rigged” in favor of the banks, the banks’ servicers have loads of money to spend (and they will spend it) to legally outmaneuver the borrower, making it virtually impossible to win their case. It is estimated that 1 out of 100 foreclosures heard by the courts will actually go anywhere, especially to appeal. Those are very bad odds, especially to those who lack the knowledge necessary to make the banks prove the default and the actual harm occurred.

One Footnote: The Credit Risk Manager

As a footnote to this research, one should also understand that some of these REMICs have what is known as a Credit Risk Manager. These are third-party firms that are fee retained (for a small percentage of the collected funds of all payments submitted to the REMIC, generally 0.0135% per annum of the Scheduled Principal Balance of each Mortgage Loan) to monitor the activities of the mortgage loan servicers collecting for the REMICs. Had the borrower’s attorney known this entity existed, it would have been so easy to depose them and all their records, to see just who was paying whom and when. But again, no one is paying attention.

Here’s an example of one SEC filing from a 424(b)(5) Prospectus:

Taken from Page S-69 from a 424(b)(5) Prospectus issued on behalf of First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-FF15

This is one of many “hired guns” that are put in place to monitor the activities of the mortgage loan servicers and master servicers. Can you imagine the shit show if you discovered that these people were being paid to monitor specific payments on your mortgage loan and the advice they gave the servicers was non-existent? That could constitute a breach of their contract! And that’s just one issue you might discover if you can get this entity into a deposition!

Read the foregoing paragraphs carefully! Notice where it says the Credit Risk Manager will provide a “loan-level loss and mitigation analysis and a prepayment premium analysis” to the REMIC’s Master Servicer and Servicer? This basically describes how the party making the payments to the Certificate Holders (who are allegedly in court claiming they were harmed) different analyses of ways to “make them whole” (mitigate their losses), meaning the Master Servicer and the Servicer, who have to pay principal and interest on the Distribution Date, every month, whether the Borrower pays their mortgage payment or not!

THE LAST STRAW

In the Osceola County Forensic Examination, the author of this post, who prepared the report, included as EXHIBIT 29 the following letter that you should read if you want to understand HOW the servicer is allowed to reimburse itself for ADVANCES paid out. For all intents and purposes, it’s an admission by the now-defunct Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC as to HOW it does its business:

If you want some real “background” on how the servicing game is played, you should download this PDF Exhibit 29 and read it thoroughly and research its contents BEFORE engaging the servicer or BEFORE you start drafting pleadings. The party you are going after in court is NOT the REMIC trust! This document should make things plain and simple for you regarding the explanation of how the servicer treats ADVANCES.

2 Comments

Filed under I'm not posting any more stuff on here!

QUESTIONS WE SHOULD BE ASKING

(OP-ED) — The author of this post (Dave Krieger) in the near future, is slated to take over as the permanent talk show host for the nationally-syndicated program called The Power Hour (a 2-hour program that airs from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Central Time). This is slated to happen near the beginning of the 4th quarter of this year. (FYI: We will be having foreclosure defense attorneys on as guests … just in time for the end of the moratorium illegally set by the current “administration” if that’s what you call it!)

CAVEAT AND DISCLAIMER: The contents of this post are based on paralegal level research and are not intended to represent legal advice. The value of the research is intended for educational purposes only.

THE VALUE OF THE LAND RECORDS

Many homeowners who really understand what’s in the county land records (previously discussed in other articles on this blog) “get” the fact that checking these records often is like checking your credit history often by ordering credit reports and looking to see what’s posted there in the trade line items. This author has put together a book on the subject (The Credit Restoration Primer), which goes into detail about how to request and analyze the information contained within your credit report, based on paralegal level research and the advice given to this author by expert attorneys who developed this program, which this author expanded and further expounded on.

The land records provide more than just a modicum of detail about your future as a homeowner. They contain every document in your chain of title that has been legally recorded. There is a difference between the word “filed”, which is used to refer to the act of initiating a lawsuit in a court or law or equity, versus the term “recorded”, which implies a public record that is handed to a Clerk, a Register of Deeds, a Recorder, an Auditor (and the like) and summarily archived in a “book” and “page” in either electronic or hard copy form. Smaller counties in America will have hard copy files (if they’re smart). The bigger counties with larger populations have resorted to digital recording of these documents through the scanning process. The originals and then sent back to the person initiating the recording of the documents.

As you may have noticed, this author used the word “legally” recorded. He did NOT say “lawfully” recorded. In other words, if a document contains false and misrepresentative information, it represents a “stain” against your property’s land record. This “stain” is commonly referred to as a “cloud on title”. A “cloud on title” basically means that there is something that is “blocking” the marketability and vendibility of the property, which means you can’t sell something that has blemishes on it because the prudent buyer that knows his stuff will not purchase something that a title company is going to “gloss over”. The title companies take these recordings at their word … if it’s recorded in the land records … it must be true (whether it is or not).

The land records are your only means of exposing these blemishes. If it’s not recorded, it means nothing in the “official realm”. In the last post, the author reflected that the 3,041 land records that exist in America are tainted with all sorts of shit documents, suspect because of (a) how they were created; (b) who created them; (c) when they were created; and (d) for what purpose were they created.

THE PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR

In the Williamson County Land Record Audit and the Osceola County Forensic Examination of the Land Records, both of these reports showed a suspect pattern of behavior in the manner in which certain documents were created, executed and recorded.

The pattern that developed and was demonstrated throughout both reports exhibited that the propensity to create these trash documents fell on the mortgage loan servicers and the foreclosure mill law firms who represent them in the theft of peoples’ homes. This is why there was a list (in the Osceola County, FL report) of the suspects, both representing mortgage loan servicers and law firms, one of which, the Gilbert Garcia Law Firm, who bitched at the Osceola County Clerk in writing, threatening a defamation suit if he didn’t remove the report from his website (nothing ever came of it). The little twits at that law firm seemed to forget that if they did file suit, the Clerk not only gets his day in Court, he also gets “discovery”, a damning tool that can be used to unearth all sorts of information involving the law firm’s participation in the creation of trash documents.

The problem with most homeowners (and many of their foreclosure defense attorneys who are feeding off their bank accounts) is that they don’t recognize the importance of discovery and how to get it.

I drafted an 11-page lawsuit in Lee County, Florida for an attorney under the direction of her investor client. It was framed as a counterclaim to a foreclosure action in which a trash assignment had been created by a mortgage loan servicer’s 3 employees. I did not name the servicer in the lawsuit. I named the 3 employees in their official capacities. I itemized every single thing they did in creating, executing and notarizing the document that was eventually recorded in the land records, calling them out on all of the “issues” that were present as misrepresented within the document.

As soon as the attorney for the investor FILED the counterclaim and started pushing for depositions of the 3 defendant employees of the mortgage loan servicer … ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW THEY WANT TO SETTLE! Why?

We collectively “hit a nerve”!

Maybe it was because we were making the right assertions in the lawsuit and attaching the Florida Criminal Code to those assertions, directing the judge to order the Clerk of the Circuit Court to produce a certified copy of the trash document and to turn it over to the State’s Attorney for further investigation. Do you think that the servicer wanted their employees to testify in a deposition? Not likely. Why? Because they would have spilled the beans on the entire operation in order to save their own asses from criminal prosecution, that’s why!

This is one way this author discovered that the pattern of behavior in the land record examinations was true. If the mortgage loan servicer didn’t have a nexus with the law firm (the servicers are the real parties retaining the law firms, not the alleged “lenders”) in initiating foreclosures, the law firm would not have acted the way it did (in the Florida case), trying to stop the depositions of the servicer’s employees. As I told John Healey (the Fort Bend County, TX D.A.), “It only takes one prosecution of a robosigner and all those who conspired with them to ‘send a message’ to the rest of these scumbags.”

Seriously, look at what happened when Las Vegas notary Tracy Lawrence testified before a grand jury about the thousands of default and sale notices she signed her boss’s name to and then notarized those same documents under the direction of her “bosses”. She ended up dead. Think about the means by which the banking, servicing and title companies operate and understand how “complex” things could get the more they are challenged as to the patterns of behavior exposed in these two land record reports … and how they can “reach out and touch someone”. Lawrence died of a 3-drug cocktail, which was found in her toxicology report (… “worst case of suicide I ever saw”). Why a cocktail? Because most women kill themselves by overdosing on something and this story would be “plausible” to investigators, who ruled it a suicide rather than what most of us probably think really happened. Think Marilyn Monroe.

Again, I must remind the readers that these are “reports”, not indictments. And, yes, this author has had numerous conversations with attorneys all across the country who have read these reports and have reached out to him to discuss the reports’ contents and the similarities they possess to the cases these attorneys are working on.

THE “RED MEAT” OF THE MATTER

By this time, you’re chomping at the bit to discover the line of questioning this author might have in mind, right?

If the author were the homeowner, he would first want to know:

  1. In a Qualified Written Request to the mortgage loan servicer under RESPA § 6:

(a.) the name of the alleged current holder of the note with the right to enforce it; and

(b.) do they have a copy of the note and mortgage or deed of trust they can send with their response?

COMMENT: Everyone shoots themselves in the foot by asking 50 questions in a voluminous request right up front instead of spacing out their requests … and the other mistake is … they don’t send it certified, return receipt requested to the servicer’s QWR address (they do have one)! The longer you can drag out a QWR, the longer it takes to get a foreclosure accomplished. I’ve seen at least 9 QWR requests in one case and it took the servicer nearly 3 years to answer all of them before they could even proceed with the foreclosure!

2. Research the assignment. This is where a subscription to “Been Verified” or use of a private investigator can really be of benefit to case development. Research every name, address and phone number on it. Identify each party and their location. This will tell you the “WHO” that is involved in your scenario. Research their backgrounds. If a law firm is mentioned anywhere on the assignment, such as “Prepared by” or “After recording, return to”, you can bet the law firm involved in the case (or retained at arm’s length by the law firm coming after you in foreclosure court) is behind the creation and manufacture of the document. The law firm (generally local, sometimes) can be tied to the pattern and thus, now you have suspects in your case development as to “WHAT” each knew and “HOW” they participated in the creation of the trash document(s). Sometimes, multiple assignments pop up in rapid succession and this should also send out warning alarms. DO NOT CONTACT THE TARGETS, DAMMIT! You’ll tip them off as to your intentions and suddenly (as has happened in some cases) … they disappear and you can’t depose them because they’re in hiding! Why does this author say that? Because people have called up the robosigners and the notaries and then they wonder why their cases are falling apart. Stupid is as stupid does.

3. Develop a list of unanswered questions for each deponent (the people you will depose). Understand that the minimum cost to depose someone starts at $3,000. You need to be careful about picking your targets.

COMMENT: A lot of this information is available in The C&E on Steroids! training kit, which has a training manual and 13 hours of DVD material covered by myself and California attorney Al West (including sample pleadings).

4. Your target is assumed to have valuable information useful to your case. Mortgage loan servicers often show up claiming to represent the REMIC trust. They are not paid by the REMIC. They are not REMIC employees. They are paid by the servicers. They are trained in mock trial courts to be “convincing” so they pass muster in court in their phony testimony. (You’re probably wondering how this author knows those mock trial courts exist, right?) Think about it. How could the servicers’ employees be so “skilled” at answering and rebutting questions asked during cross examination if they weren’t educated? Understand WHO you’re dealing with here. Deposing a REMIC is futile because by the time the case gets to you and your home, that REMIC is closed and long gone. Sending correspondence to the REMIC is also futile. If they’re closed they can’t answer, right?

5. You need to discover whether you’re dealing with a “trust” or a “pretend trust”. There is a difference. Some of these “pretend trusts” are junk debt pools whose employees manufactured the assignments with the intent to claim standing in court to foreclose. Assume the foreclosure judge doesn’t care about the assignments. This is why we file C&E’s BEFORE the foreclosure, to tie off documents before a judge who isn’t handling foreclosures. We want them thrown out so a foreclosure judge can’t proceed against us! This is the value of declaratory relief. If you wait until your foreclosure is in motion, it’s likely your judge will merge your suit into the foreclosure and toss your claim against the document the other side is using to steal your home! Timing is everything. Discovery is necessary to find out WHO you’re dealing with here.

6. If you are dealing with a REMIC, you need to obtain a copy of the 424(b)(5) Prospectus (not the FWP). In it, you will find the ADVANCES section. You may also find a section entitled, “The Credit Risk Manager”. If you are fortunate enough to have THAT party named in your prospectus … these people monitor the activities of the mortgage loan servicers dealing with the REMIC and they’ve got troves of information and should be considered a primary target for deposition and production of documents. They should be able to tell you whether or not and how long the advances were paid to the certificate holders, who are assumedly in court claiming they’ve been damaged, when in fact, they’ve been paid all along or have been made whole through the default payouts described in my last article after DAY 91.

7. You’ll need to investigate DAY 91 and what happened then. Asking questions relevant to the insurance payouts, credit default swap payouts, title insurance payouts and PMI/LPMI/MIP payouts, etc. could put a “feather in your cap” in demonstrating to the court that the real party in interest isn’t present in the courtroom. If you follow the money trail, you’ll expose mounds of information that was as useful in the Buffington case in Arizona against U.S. Bank.

You’ll notice the Court only threw out one of the causes of action … the one for FRAUD. This should send a message to you … a clear one … because 99.9% of litigants go into court screaming “Fraud!” WRONG! You don’t have enough evidence to prove that, so get that shit out of your head right now! Until you’re done with discovery, or your case proceeds to the point where the true evidence emerges in the case to actually ask the court to amend your complaint to include “Fraud”, “Conspiracy” and “RICO”, DON’T LEAD WITH THAT! By doing so, you’ve just added about $5000-$10000 to your legal bills. Duh. If you had that kind of money, you wouldn’t be in foreclosure in the first place!

And don’t let your attorney plead FRAUD either! He’s doing that because he doesn’t know any better. He was trained in law school to plead “shotgun style”, like the spaghetti noodle theory … throw shit at a wall and see what sticks. In this day and age, judges don’t appreciate that. It’s a great way to posture yourself in a negative light before the court. The way this author sees things (after having been in trial court with attorneys on numerous foreclosure cases), the judge is already against you when you walk into court. Why make things worse?

The idea here is “wise as serpents, harmless as doves.”

IDENTIFYING SERVICERS

By looking at the complaints or recorded documents and looking at the “WHOs” in the document and tracing their employment, you’ll easily find out WHO the robosigners work for. Any robosigner or notary in California has to keep a journal with thumb prints and signatures in them. Bet they won’t have those when you request Production of Documents and call them on it. I love deposing notaries, even if they no longer have commissions. Notaries can be your best friend in a deposition (and not beforehand).

Once you’ve identified the servicers, go back into the REMIC documents (if a REMIC is involved) and look at the Servicers that are named in the REMIC prospectus. Research each one and you’ll probably find multiple assignments and transfers of the collateral files, where stuff can go missing or be falsely duplicated. You’ll want to get at that collateral file, but QWR’s will only give you limited discovery in advance. You’ll need to target the collateral file in the Request for Production. That’s how the author would do it if he were the victim here.

Again, this isn’t legal advice. It’s just the means to be able to get a judge to ask the other side’s lawyer who he’s really representing, so you can tell the court you have no contract with the mortgage loan servicer … so why are they there instead of the REMIC? Most people don’t get that far because they’re not forward thinking. They’re so tied up in emotional knots they can’t think straight. They just want to lash out and then wonder why they end up homeless and living in a tent city (or worse, with relatives).

You can also build a case against the mortgage loan servicer when they don’t respond to your QWR requests (either at all or in an untimely manner). The author would suggest you look up the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act § 6 and thoroughly read that BEFORE engaging in your research quest. Understand that there are statute of limitations on many things involving your case. Identify what those are and avoid challenging areas where the court is likely to toss your claims. It’s another waste of money.

ONCE YOU GET TO THE SERVICER, YOU CAN EXPOSE THE LAW FIRM

In the Carrsow-Franklin case in New York, Wells Fargo’s robosigning behaviors were exposed by New York bankruptcy attorney Linda Tirelli. The use of MERS in a lot of these documents can also work in your favor, even though MERS is now hiding behind the same bunch that owns the New York Stock Exchange.

You’ll find the use of MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.) shows up in all REMIC-related cases. If MERS is involved, you can bet your loan was securitized into the secondary mortgage markets.

And don’t sue MERS … you’re throwing money away again. They have very good hiding places that will cost you millions of dollars to find … if you get my drift. And you don’t have millions of dollars to spend; otherwise, you wouldn’t be in the foreclosure mess you’re in, right?

Some folks have amended their foreclosure complaints to include the law firm involved in the processing of the documents because it localizes their cases and keeps them in state court instead of getting thrown into the federal realm, where litigation costs are exponential and the banks’ attorneys have an edge. The local law firm suing you can be especially vulnerable if the law firm’s employees were involved in the direct manufacture and robosigning and notarizing of the documents. Surprisingly, many of the law firms involved in the National Default Exchange (NDEX; a national network of foreclosure mills) are directly involved in processing trash documents. Research those networks and what you find may surprise you, especially when you discover what “servicing platforms” they used (Vendorscape, Servicelink, etc.) and what discoverable information you can get from that.

If the law firm was directly involved in “doing the dirty”, now the State Bar can get involved … if you get my drift.

RESEARCH THE JUDGE!

Assume all of them are bought and paid for by the banks! That way, you’ll know who you’re dealing with. Research their political campaigns and who donated to them (betcha never heard that angle before). It’s a great way to get them to recuse themselves from your case, especially if the mortgage loan servicer or law firm that’s trying to foreclose on you donated to the judge’s campaign.

judicialwatch.org/judge and therobingroom.com are great tools to explore the way federal judges rule and to look up their declared financial records. You might find a conflict of interest. One such case in Florida opened up a can of worms when the homeowner discovered that one of the federal judge’s law clerks worked for a former foreclosure mill that litigated against the homeowner in the lower courts! Talk about conflict of interest!

For state judges, you’ll have to do more digging, which is the subject of another article.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

As a closing note, if you have to educate your attorney on discovery and how to read a prospectus and understand securitization, you need to find another attorney who you don’t have to spend money to educate. Avoid attorneys with big egos and attorneys who make promises that “you’ve got a great case”; otherwise, you’ll be bent over a screwed again in the end … if you get my drift.

2 Comments

Filed under OP-ED, Securitization Issues