Tag Archives: Advances

THE C&E, ASSIGNMENTS … AND YOUR RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THEM (PART 1) …

(OP-ED) — The author of this post is a consultant to attorneys on quiet title and cancellation and expungement actions and thus, not an attorney who can give legal advice.  This overview, with its suggestive commentary, is for your educational entertainment only. 

Scenario … “The Set-Up”

You want to buy a home.  You don’t have much money, but credit is plentiful, as long as you can “fog up a mirror”.  You’re the “party of the first part” because you’re willing to take a gamble that if you can get a loan, you’ll be able to pay it back, with interest.

However, you’re not “Party A” (the party of the second part).  Party A” is a corresponding lender. That means it’s highly likely your loan is going to be securitized, which means it’s going to be put into the MERS® System, which is now owned by the same company that owns the New York Stock Exchange.

But of course, you’re ignorant of all of the shenanigans going on behind the scenes because you just want the keys to the house.

Meet “Party B” … not Cardi B; Cardi B has lots of money and she can probably pay cash for a house).

Party B is more than likely the sponsor-seller (the interim funding lender in the deal).  Party B figured out how to make a puttload of money doing securitization, so Party B hooked up with some attorneys who all engaged in “pure intellectual masturbation” together to create a “sales pitch”, known to investors as a 424(b)(5) Prospectus.  This document was drafted and signed under penalty of perjury under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  But that wouldn’t really matter to you, because you just wanted the keys to the house, right?

Meet “Party C” … the Depositor.  This entity is never a “member”, “user” or “subscriber” of the MERS® System; however, the Depositor plays an important role in securitization because it has to accumulate all of the documents (mortgages and notes funded by the REMIC) together by the specified “Cut-Off Date”, which is shown in the Prospectus (the sales pitch), which has to be done by a date certain (not 5 or 7 years down the road) or else the transfer of the loan into the REMIC would be void.  Party C is one of those parties that is a necessary party to securitization, so without it being named in the chain of transfers from Party A to Party B to Party C to “Party D” (the Trustee for the REMIC trust), as specified in the Prospectus, by the specified date, then it creates all sorts of legal challenges down the road, for both borrowers and investors alike.

To make even more money on the deal, Party B goes out and makes applications all over town for default insurance, while placing side bets (credit default swaps) on the performance of the certificates issued to the investors who have no idea what’s coming.

Now that all the side bets are in place and the loans have all been funded, the loan you got through Party A (the corresponding lender who only put up 5% of the deal) just closed and Party A got reimbursed by Party B, who actually funded the loan!

Later you find out the truth … but wait … if Party B was actually footing the bill with investor money it got through securitization, shouldn’t Party B be named the lender on the mortgage or deed of trust?  You’d think so.  But nope!  That puts Party B too close to the action on the assignment that’s supposed to be recorded in the land records where your house is … but somehow … Party B and its corresponding lenders are having too much fun giving loans to people they knew couldn’t repay them … so they forget about recording the required assignments altogether.

Ha! Ha! Ha!  Not!

The sponsor-seller knows what’s coming, because it’s holding all the Aces and it knows that over time … the house of cards will fall because all the loans in the pool are set to “reset” themselves within a certain period of time, causing the entire REMICs value to collapse.  I call it “Day 91”.  That’s the day the sponsor-seller gets to cash in on all of the insurance policies and credit default swaps.  The sponsor-seller can take a $500,000 loan and make $7.5-million off of the deal!

And here you are, swimming in debt, trying to figure out how to pay that mortgage that just reset itself through that adjustable rate BS you obligated yourself for.  But there’s more month at the end of the money.  You stop paying.  Party B is counting on it!  Party B set the whole thing up (using the MERS® System) to obfuscate the chain of title so it can create assignments of mortgage and deeds of trust to record in the land records vis a vis the mortgage loan servicer, who is tasked with taking your payment every month.

At least that’s what the mortgage loan servicer wants you to think when it sends you the default notice!  But alas … another lie.

The mortgage loan servicer is required to pay your principal and interest payments on your mortgage loan to the investors whether you pay them or not!   It’s called an “Advance”.  That too, is in the Prospectus … (not in the PSA)!   Simply put … are you really in default when the alleged REMIC moves to foreclose on you?   If someone is paying the investors every month, then how can they claim you’re in default.  Because they have a contract with you?   The originating lender (Party A) was paid off at closing by Party B (who used investor money to fund the loan) … this is what we call “table-funded lending”.

I’m trying to tell a story here, because this is the part where the rubber meets the road! 

Until you default (when the servicer declares you aren’t making your payments anymore) … you’ll never see an assignment recorded in the land records (99% of the time).  You have no contract with the servicer (Party E, for Empty Pockets).  Servicers have been known to “rob Peter’s account to pay Paul’s account” all the time, like Ocwen, which is why servicers are sloppy with handling money and shitty record-keeping.  But the servicer has another angle … it uses its employees to create assignments of mortgage and deeds of trust using MERS to cover up the missing links in the chain of title and conveys the title from Party A to Party D, without any recollection or mention of Parties B or C!   So who is it really coming into court to foreclose?

If you said Party E, you’re right!   These days, servicers are being even more brash, claiming they have a power of attorney from Party D (the Trustee for the REMIC) to foreclose on behalf of Certificateholders of some REMIC “series number”, claiming the certificate holders have been “harmed”, when in fact, the servicer is just trying to reimburse itself for all the defaulted payments it kept making on your behalf.   Now it’s using phony documentation to claim the note and mortgage were transferred to Party D, many years later.  The REMICs only stay open a year, so none of that makes any sense.  So the mortgage loan servicer retains the law firm to foreclose on your house … let the lying, cheating and stealing begin!   All on behalf of Party F (the investors).  I use Party “F” because in this scenario, the investors get “F**ked” in the end because the money made by stealing your house using phony assignments created by the mortgage loan servicer and its employees goes into their pockets and not those of the investors.

The attorneys continue the lie by claiming you’re not a third-party beneficiary to the assignment!   

And the judges buy into that crap hook, line and sinker!  It shows their ignorance! 

There are a lot of problems with these foreclosure mill lawyers using that falsehood.  In fact, the very pleadings or responses they file in lawsuits brought by the homeowner in deed of trust states to stop the foreclosure, or in the pleadings they put into the court record in mortgage states, contain misstatements in of themselves … and even more so when they have to rely on the recorded documents that the mortgage loan servicers put into the land records, in violation of statutes and penal codes, that contain false and misrepresentative information.

And the borrower and the attorney for the borrower run into court and wave the assignment around, telling the judge it’s a fraudulent document.  The judge of course (after hearing the attorney say you can’t challenge the assignment because you’re not a third-party beneficiary to the assignment) goes along with the bank’s argument … just because it seems to make sense.  However, there is a problem with that scenario.

Check back for PART 2 … where we discuss the bank’s flawed argument … and what homeowners are countering that flawed argument with!

HINT: Are the investors really third-party beneficiaries?  (think about it seriously, really).

Why should that affect you?

Look at your assignment!

6 Comments

Filed under OP-ED

MIAMI-DADE JUDGE BITCH SLAPS US BANK!

(BREAKING NEWS — OP-ED) — 

It’s not every day a judge gets vile with a plaintiff REMIC trying to foreclose on some unsuspecting homeowner … however; in this case, Judge Beatrice Butchko (of the infamous Buset case, you know, the one she said where HSBC came into court with unclean hands?) did a smack down on U.S. Bank’s attorneys with a show cause order:

Signed-Order-to-Show-Cause

If the infamous Buset case wasn’t enough for you, this case has some serious robosigning underpinnings, thanks to your wonderful friends at Bank of America, N.A.:

ZAYAS ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE

And for those of you C&E fans out there … you’ll be glad to see what’s in the assignment of mortgage that Bank of America contract workers in Simi Valley, California (B of A’s document mill) cranked out, all those famous names, the names you know … Dominique Johnson, Mary Ann Hierman and Srbui Muradyan … and lest we forget L.A. Llanos, who signed the document under penalty of perjury under California law!  Sadly, a Miami-Dade law firm was involved in the manufacture of the assignment.  Can you see the name of the attorney in the upper, left-hand corner of the recorded Instrument?

They even backdated the assignment to March 6, 2010.  But no matter … the REMIC trust was closed on March 30, 2006, so backdating the assignment to March 6, 2010 means nothing. The REMIC’s cut-off date was March 1, 2006.  And let’s talk about the ADVANCES section, shall we?

Anyone researching into MortgageIt knows this entity was fully acquired by Deutsche Bank Structured Products on January 3, 2007, nearly 3 years after MortgageIt went public.  The two would later settle fraud charges under the federal False Claims Act for repeated false certifications to HUD.  In January of 2018, MortgageIT ceased its wholesale lending practices.

Under the ADVANCES section, do you notice that this section is all about the Servicer and NOT the REMIC?  From the looks of these two paragraphs, this REMIC was subprime shit!

And for those of you who think CoreLogic is your friend, think again.  And exactly what happened to the Simi Valley, California document mill, in which a majority of the assignments involved or named CoreLogic within the document?   All of a sudden, it ceased to exist, after reportedly retaining over 40 contract robosigners to affix their signatures to assignments like the one shown in this post, supervised by at least 3 Bank of America employees.  The majority of the Simi Valley garbage was produced between 2012 and 2015.  Anything you see involving the law firm handling the processing of the foreclosure, CoreLogic and Bank of America should be considered suspect and flagged for investigation.

Where’s the Note?

Good question.  There’s no mention of it in the assignment of mortgage.  There are (to date) 181 docket listings for this case, leading up to the judge’s Show Cause Order.

The Note was never assigned.  And we all know that notes are “negotiated” right?   So … we went looking for the October 21, 2005 note in the Court file and voila:

Notice the indorsement-in-blank is undated?  There is no effective date of transfer, nor does it evidence 3 true sales as stated within the REMIC’s own sales pitch (below), needed to occur.  And exactly HOW MANY payments of principal and interest did the servicer make to the certificate holders before it demanded to be reimbursed.  How many credit default swaps were executed as part of the deal that paid out?   How much default insurance was cashed in on?   Certainly the title was screwed up?   How much did the sponsor-seller make off of claiming that the securities were equitable instruments when they were, in fact, nothing but evidence of debt.  This is the problem with Wall Street … fooling investors and the government into believing that this subprime shit actually had value when the trusts were probably empty promises to begin with!

SEC Info – Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Inc – ‘424B5’ on 3:29:06 re: Specialty Underwriting & Re

A lot of “proof” has to go into the pudding, so let’s take a look at the recent Certo case and see if we can glean any juicy details as far as the note is concerned:

Certo v BONY Mellon, 1D17-4421 (Apr 3, 2019)

I know.  It’s information overload.  But it’s current … and in the Certo case, the 1st DCA reversed the circuit court’s ruling of foreclosure.

And how is it that MERS alone was being relied on by people who had little to no idea was MERS was (in the assignment)?  At least one contract worker who said he worked at the BofA document mill said he signed over 225 documents a day as a Vice President of MERS and had no idea who MERS was!  If that’s not f**ked up, I don’t know what is!  But hey, when you put your faith in the American Banking System, you get F**KED!

The author of this post is the authored of Clouded Titles, available at CloudedTitles.com!  The commentary expressed herein is the opinion of the authors and does not constitute legal advice.  If you want legal advice, get an attorney that knows how to properly draft and file a cancellation and expungement action on a recorded assignment,  In Florida, we like F.C.C. § 817.535, which has a civil component to it.

To all of the C&E students who recently attended the Las Vegas workshop … see if you can spot the targets in the Assignment of Mortgage in this article!  How many in-state and out-0f-state defendants and/or deponents can you identify?   Put that show cause order date on your calendar.  I’ll be interested to see what Judge Butchko does to these morons.

It’s funny that they can come into court and assert stuff.  Then, when asked to prove it up through discovery, they refuse to give us the goods that we can use to eviscerate them.  Lest we also forget … what about this piece?: U_S_BANK_Brochure_Borrower-is-a-party_9-13

All of this stuff leaves us with a lot of questions, right?    But it appears Judge Butchko isn’t leaving a lot to chance.  She appears to have closed a lot of loopholes versus the outcome in the Buset case, where she determined HSBC came to court with unclean hands.  It won’t be the first time.

If Deutsche Bank subsumed MortgageIT in 2007, how did this REMIC, with US Bank as its Trustee, end up with the Note and Mortgage in 2010, long after the REMIC closed?

See IRC § 860(g) and New York Estates Powers & Trusts § 7-2.4.

Bruce Jacobs certainly has his hands full again, right?

To be continued.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

CFPB UPDATE ON OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC …

BREAKING NEWS —

For those of you who need clarification on Ocwen Loan Servicing’s “financial position” and “mortgage servicing rights”, please pay close attention to WHAT Ocwen acquired from ResCap and why ResCap had to file Chapter 11.  Here’s the 11-page update:

Update on The CFPBs Enforcement Case against Ocwen Financial Corporation

You can also read (in the last paragraph of the Report) what the status is on the lawsuit filed by the CFPB.

For those of you that have been following my blog posts, also understand that ALL SERVICERS have to comply with REMIC rules if a REMIC is involved in your mortgage loan … that includes ADVANCES!  Please refer to my other article on Ocwen in The Pooling & Servicing Agreement: Why Just Eat Half The Enchilada? 

For those of you that need “clarification” on the duties of the Servicer, please pay close attention to the attachments in the referenced article … especially under the area of ADVANCES.  This might explain more of servicer fraud, as the servicer, by omission, commits fraud on the court by NOT admitting that it has to make your mortgage payments if you fail to do so, under the 424(b)(5) Prospectus regulations (shown in the article, by Ocwen’s own admission), coming into court in a foreclosure proceeding claiming that the investors it represents (the REMIC’s certificate holders) suffered harm, when in fact (PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE DISTRIBUTION DATES IN THE REMIC’S REGULATIONS), the investors have been getting paid all along, as long as the servicer is able to make the payments.  This is even more evident when you read the sentence in the Report issued by the CFPB (attached) which explains WHY ResCap filed bankruptcy!  Sorry, you actually should read the Report! 

You can learn to fight Servicer Fraud at our upcoming Foreclosure Defense Workshop … this weekend in Orlando, Florida!  Servicer Fraud is NOT just Ocwen … it’s all of them! 

FDW ORLANDO REGISTRATION FORM

There are still a few seats left!

We will be sharing information about the differences in “buying time” versus “full resolution” in your foreclosure case!

Learn to attack Assignments of Mortgage and Deeds of Trust the right way!

Learn to attack the other’s side’s Limited Power of Attorney!  … and so much more!

1 Comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, Securitization Issues