Tag Archives: assignment of deed of trust

GUTTING THE UNDERBELLY OF THE BEAST – PART 6

(OP-ED, first posted: September 11, 2018) —

The writer of this post is a paralegal and consultant to attorneys on matters involving chain of title, foreclosures and document manufacturing.  The opinions expressed herein are that of the writer’s only and do not constitute legal or financial advice.  Any use of the theories or ideas suggested in this post is entirely at your discretion and will probably result in disaster without the proper legal help.

In my last episode (Part 5) of this series of posts, I talked about risk aversion and the creation of a paper trail.  In this episode, I cover the “why” this becomes necessary.

DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF A CLAIM

The very first thing I look at (as a title consultant) is the chain of title, especially the warranty or grant deed (proof of ownership), the mortgage (or deed of trust) and any subsequent assignments coming against the chain of title.  All of these documents (in certified form) become the initial evidence in support of any claim I may have against a law firm, a judge or any other party that put that false and misrepresentative information into the public record and then relied on it to steal my property.  After all, in judicial states, where I see most of the atrocities committed, the foreclosure mill attorneys are the ones attaching these documents in their pleadings, as exhibits, or in the alternative, making reference to said exhibits, to be used as evidence to support their complaints to justify the foreclosure.

The pleadings themselves (in original or amended form) also become part of the evidence package in support of my claim, because they contain the language that relies on the false and misrepresentative statements where an assignment was posited or referenced therein as evidence in support of their claim.  This package should include every single document placed within the court docket, including the index sheet … certified copies (and 1 plain copy for review). 

You’re probably asking yourself where the promissory note comes into play here, because judicial states mandate you have to have the original note in order to foreclose. In non-judicial states, possession of the note is not required to foreclose; thus, all foreclosures are assumed to be legal unless otherwise challenged.  This means that if you’re in one of the non-judicial states, you have to institute suit based on the chain of title you have, in order to start the paper trail.  Thus, non-judicial state property owners are at a distinct disadvantage because they must spend the money filing a lawsuit to stop the foreclosure and obtain a temporary restraining order (TRO) and they are limited at best as to what is provable and what isn’t because the other side has not responded to the suit.  You can’t make boisterous claims either, as you will be denied the TRO and that is what you’re seeking to shut down the foreclosure sale.   You see, until the other side responds, they’ve created no paper trail you can assert contains false and misrepresentative statements, which is why I like using a C & E (an acronym for Cancellation & Expungement Complaint) “right out of the gate” if I realize I might not be able to make my mortgage loan payments any more.  Waiting until the 11th hour to file one of these Complaints (in of itself) has been definitely proven to be a waste of time and financial resources.  Filing a wrongful foreclosure action (before the fact) is also a waste of time and financial resources because the foreclosure has not occurred yet (and this is supported by case law).  I mention all of this because your research becomes fundamental as part of creating the paper trail.

Any oral statements made in court have to be supported by some sort of record.  This is why we have court reporters.  Most pro se litigants and uneducated homeowners conveniently forget to retain a court reporter to document everything said in open court to their disadvantage. This means that with no court record, there’s nothing to take up on appeal or challenge because you’ve “stiffed” yourself out of a paper trail.  Besides, having a court reporter has been shown to keep the judge honest.  Don’t think that just because the county can afford to have its own court reporter there means you can simply rely on getting a copy of the transcript from the county’s court reporter.  They are backlogged with work and will take their time getting anything to you, at a time when having a transcript of the proceedings might be timely necessary.  This always works to the homeowner’s disadvantage.  That is deliberate!  Why?  Because the county is using its own court reporter to “cover its own ass” and you can bet stuff will be left out of the record.  Then it’s your word against the county’s.  So, tis better to get your own court reporter!  You need to create your own “timely paper trail” for future use and reference.  This is not a traffic ticket we’re talking about here!

Discovery is vital whether or not you are doing a C & E (which allows you to do discovery of the party executing the assignment and the notary who acknowledged the assignment) or a full-blown complaint to stop the foreclosure.  Discovery responses becomes part of your evidence package … and the “paper trail”!  If you don’t propound discovery on the other side or at least the relevant parties (the ones who created the assignment), you’re on a sinking ship.  All of the discovery (and the responses you get) become part of the paper trail.

Depositions are a must!  These are taken using a court reporter who writes down every single word that is spoken and many of them use video cameras (which is allowed) to take taped statements, which is even more intimidating.  I find that going after the creator of the document, the executor of the document and the notary who acknowledged the document are vital to creating a proper paper trail (not so much the creator of the document, unless you’re trying to solidify that the law firm or servicer was involved in a civil conspiracy with the agents who executed the assignment).  You’re only talking a minimum of TWO DEPOSITIONS here … the executor of the assignment and the notary who acknowledged it.  What authority did they have to execute the document?  Where is the notary’s bond?  Is there even a bond?  Can we attack the notary’s commission even though there is no bonding requirement?  YOU BET!  Attacking a notary’s bond (if there is one to go after) can be a source of cash flow to support your court fight. You can bet the other side will object to everything you ask for because they don’t want anything said on the record that can be used against them in court.

In all matters related to your case, PHONE CALLS DO NOT WORK!  You cannot take phone calls into court!  DO NOT CALL THE NOTARY!  Do not contact the notary by mail!  If you’re sending them a subpoena to appear at a deposition … their deposition … you do it through a process server … which is also a legitimate part of your paper trail!   I have people who have contacted me who do exactly what I just suggested NOT TO DO.  They scare the notary into hiding.  When it does come time to serve them with a subpoena, they can’t be found.  Duh!  And these people actually think they’re doing the right thing?  Seriously?  What part of desperation is incorporated into stupidity?  This is where you have to put your emotions aside and start thinking “common sense”.

THE EXPERT WITNESS AFFIDAVIT AND LIVE COURT TESTIMONY

I’m talking “expert witness attorney” here, not your average forensic loan or securitization auditor (who thinks they’re an expert witness).  Why an attorney for an expert witness?  Allow me to re-arrange your brain’s priorities through the following three reasons:

REASON #1: Litigation Consultant … your expert witness attorney can also serve as a litigation consultant to help you frame some damning discovery centered around statutory violations!  This is important because using the stuff I mentioned previously in The Quiet Title War Manual has nothing to do whether or not you can challenge assignments because you’re not a third-party beneficiary.  That is a bullshit banking argument that has nothing to do with the statute in question!  The statutes speak directly to the recording of documents known to contain false and misrepresentative information!  Separate the two distinctions in your mind because the borrower’s name is in the assignment; the borrower is a party to securitization (if that’s an issue) and because the document involves misrepresentations that may include “MERS” (in whatever form), which claim that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. had something to do with negotiating the instrument (the note), which runs contrary to what’s in the assignment, generally.

REASON #2: Personal Knowledge of the Facts … this happens when the expert witness attorney reviews all of your documents.  He can testify as to their factual basis AND render a legal opinion … BOTH under oath and under penalty of perjury as a lawyer!  This is way different than having a so-called “expert” that’s NOT an attorney testify as to anything factual … they can’t give legal opinions; otherwise, in doing so, their testimony could be impeached or effectively diluted under cross examination. Not only that … because the attorney who serves as your expert witness is sitting in the court (prior to giving his testimony), he actually gleans personal knowledge listening to the other side’s attorney further the false and misrepresentative information to the court … for which the damage is immediate (see In re Wilson, U.S. Bkpt Ct E.D. La No 07-11862, Memorandum of Law in Support of the United States Trustee’s Motion for Sanctions against Lender Processing Services, Inc. and the Boles Law Firm), which says:

“Untruthful statements made in bankruptcy proceedings undermine the integrity of the bankruptcy process. The bankruptcy system relies on the candor and accuracy of information presented by all parties, creditors and debtors alike. To ensure candor before this Court and to protect the integrity of the bankruptcy system, this Court should impose on Fidelity and Boles monetary sanctions and other non-monetary relief as this Court deems appropriate pursuant to its inherent authority to sanction abusive litigants coming before the Court, and pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a).”  And from the following footnote, No. 16):

“Rule 9011 provides a 20 day “safe harbor” in which a party may withdraw the challenged written representations, unless they are contained in the bankruptcy petition. If the challenged paper is withdrawn, it would not be considered by the court in its decision making process. However, there can be no safe harbor for untruthful statements made in open court, because the harm that results is likely to be immediate.”

(I just told you the Expert Witness Attorney would be there to hear all of the “immediate” misrepresentations.)  This is an actual case where Wells Fargo Bank got hit with a $1.3-million sanction!

This is an attorney, namely, the Bankruptcy Trustee, reporting misconduct! He is telling the other side (through his memorandum, they’ve been given fair warning to recant what they’ve placed into the court record).   If you didn’t catch that so far … let me make sure to clarify this in the following “reason”:

REASON #3: Rule 8.3 – Reporting Professional Misconduct … this is a mandated state bar rule (how many foreclosure defense attorneys actually follow it?)

(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

(b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.

The foregoing mandates (which is what “shall” means, not “may”) are put there to hold attorneys accountable to report misconduct. What forensic loan auditor or securitization auditor is mandated by the Bar’s own rules to to this?  Come on, think?  Where’s the mandate?

(long pause, heavy sigh)  Come up with one yet? Didn’t think so.

This means that when the expert witness comes into personal knowledge of the facts that the other side’s lawyer has committed felony perjury by making false and misrepresentative statements in open court, he has a mandated duty (for which the State Bar must listen) to report the other lawyer’s misconduct!

This also means that if the judge hearing your case doesn’t give a shit and let’s this scumbag attorney for the bank say whatever he wants and get away with it and hands your property over to the bank AFTER your expert witness attorney advises (through a legal opinion) that the other side’s lawyer, in both pleadings and exhibits and oral statements made, has committed misconduct, not only is the judge exposed and now at risk, but the county he is employed by may also be “on the hook”.

At least bankruptcy judges have the decency to “do the right thing”.  I recently noted the results of the Sundquist ruling in California.  Sundquist-Memo-Opinion

A lot of this depends on how “stacked” your paper trail is and what evidence of misconduct you were able to actually PROVE (not just assert).

EXPOSED RISK FACTORS 

BTW, for those of you “Patriots” out there … a majority of the judges’ oaths of office I’ve seen were actually recorded in the public record in the county they serve in!  This is important to recognize the WHY you’d want a certified copy of their oath of office.   THE PAPER TRAIL!   It’s proof he/she (as a judge) is serving IN THAT COUNTY!

Most counties are self-insured.  The county has either a County Executive or Risk Manager who handles their claims because of something an employee did wrong.  Who would think to tag a judge?   After all, aren’t the judges bonded?   What happens if the bond is attacked, challenged and successfully revoked?   The judge can’t sit on the bench, right?  He will probably be placed on administrative leave while the county investigates what happened.  But that’s not all the county has to worry about.

As a result of the trial or hearing (whether it be evidentiary or just one of those 5-minute “rocket docket” style pieces of crap), there are two other complaints that must be reported … a complaint on the lawyer to the State Bar that can discipline him … and a complaint on the judge to the appropriate judicial authority.  More paper trail to show the County … to give them fair warning that they need to step up or face the consequences!

ALL OF THIS HAS TO BE DONE BY THE EXPERT WITNESS ATTORNEY … WHO IS MANDATED TO “PULL THE TRIGGER”!   PRO SE LITIGANTS (who think they know more than the expert witness attorney) WILL ONLY F**K THIS UP IF THEY TRY TO DO IT THEMSELVES (calling into the county or the bar or the judicial review board and whining about their silly little issues, or filing crap judicial misconduct complaints, which is how the major insurance players in this game will view their cheap efforts to avoid having to pay for an expert witness attorney).  I put this part in the back end of this post as a caveat, because it’s the expert witness attorney who has the “big stick of dynamite with the short fuse” … NOT YOU! 

It gets better … stay tuned for another round of insight into the insurance game in the next segment! The title companies are also in this up to their ears (among other places)!

Advertisements

6 Comments

Filed under OP-ED

THE JOURNEY BEGINS WHEN THE PITY PARTY ENDS … STEP TWO!

Op-Ed — (continued from the previous post) STEP TWO … 

The Internet can be a dangerous thing, especially when doing research, trying to find answers to questions surrounding a potential financial issue that could become a crisis, like a foreclosure.

One of the reasons why I post blogs is because people share them.  Others who are in despair happen to run across these posts and some of them walk away with reason.  The “reason” I speak of is the need to recognize when there is a problem and the HOW TO’s to do something about it. Being in denial solves nothing.  It simply prolongs the problem.  Sometimes, it makes the problem worse.

The bigger part of the problem is the second issue I spoke of in the previous article: Confusion.  Understanding what is happening in its most blatant aspects is that there is the potential of losing one’s home.  The WHY of it all stems from the alleged lender’s assertion that payments were missed and that the loan is in default.

In mortgage states, or states that are commonly referred to as judicial states, you not only get your “day in court”, but the bank has to actually PROVE that you are in default AND that they hold your promissory note AND have the right to enforce the terms of the mortgage (and note).   In all cases, the mortgage FOLLOWS the note.  The mortgage is a recorded security instrument, which is found in the public record in the county in which the mortgaged property is located.  It contains terms and conditions which must be adhered to in order to keep the note holder from foreclosing and taking their “security for the loan” back.

In deed of trust states, or states that are commonly referred to as non-judicial states, you don’t get your day in court unless you file a lawsuit and demand that the court issue a temporary restraining order (TRO), which prevents the lender (or its alleged servicing representative) from advertising and conducting a sale of your property on the courthouse steps at a prescribed point in time.  The deed of trust is also a recorded security instrument, which operates similarly to a mortgage, and if properly recorded, is also found in the public record in the county in which the mortgaged property is located.

You should know that if lenders had their way, EVERY STATE would be a deed of trust state.  That way, the lenders and their henchmen would have nothing to prove when it came to advertising and selling homes on the courthouse steps.  Until they actually bribe every state’s legislature to change over to non-judicial from judicial, homeowners still have their day in court. This is the only way the banks can win.  Knowing of this potential makes me wonder why people are taking out loans to buy property when, if they know there is a possibility of their financial future turning dismal, they don’t just buy a small plot of raw land and “build as they go”.  This would seemingly make more sense and involve the banks less.

Another reason the lenders prefer a deed of trust to a mortgage is that when examining the 2007-08 financial crisis, homeowners were affected to the point where most in financial straits could not afford an attorney let alone keeping food on the table.  Knowing the homeowner won’t fight back increases a successful outcome by the lender of taking the property back without much hassle.  Now that the Dodd-Frank Act has been molested and degraded to the point of history repeating itself, how many potential homeowners will be sucked into taking out mortgages from the mega-banks, which the gutting of Dodd-Frank was clearly designed to benefit.  You can bet the major lenders had a lot to do with those major changes to the most recent passage of the “Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act”.  Because these bills are so voluminous and partisan, they create more “confusion” for the average person on the street who didn’t go to law school.

Your “property” has a chain of title … 

Researching your property’s chain of title is like peeling away the layers of an onion.  The more research you do, the more layers you peel away, leaving the real truth on the table, which, after peeling an onion, leaves most people in tears.  This is why I used the “onion” analogy because peeling onions makes my nose run and my eyes water.  Finding out what really happened to you as the result of your being duped by an unscrupulous mortgage loan officer would make anyone cry, especially when they discover that they made a mistake getting that particular mortgage loan in the first place.  And now, you’ve opened “Pandora’s Box” and found the onion.

Accepting the “truth” for what it is … 

During the times prior to the 2007-08 financial crisis, banks and mortgage companies were loaning money to anyone who could “fog up a mirror”, altering mortgage loan applications, baiting loan applicants with teaser rates tied to adjustable rate, interest-only and negative amortization loans and mortgages that looked normal, only to end up finding one got stuck with a balloon note or interest rates that put their monthly payments out of reach of their paychecks.  This was deliberate and calculated.  The banks played both sides of the coin when they lured the investors into the schemes of securitization and lured the homeowners into loans they neither could afford nor deserved.  The first “truth” you need to recognize is whether you’ve bitten off more than you can chew.  Once you realize what the truth is, it makes it easier to come to grips with and deal with HOW the mistake was made that got you into the dilemma you’re in now.  I went through this “dilemma”.  I got stuck with an “80/20 loan”.  That’s two separate mortgages, wherein the second mortgage (the “20”) had a much higher interest rate and was generally tied to another Wall Street security altogether. I used the foregoing phraseology to describe “securitization”.

It does not take an Einstein to figure out that when there’s more month at the end of the money, you’re not making it.  When you’re even one day late on your mortgage payments, the servicer handling your mortgage “red flags” your account and starts a file on you. The servicer is generally looking for excuses to take your home away from you.  No servicer in today’s times is “nice”; in fact, they’re all common liars from time to time, especially those $9/hour cubicle employees who tell you that you have to be 90 days late before you can apply for a loan mod.  THAT IS THE BIG LIE!  The servicer knows that on Day 91, the REMIC’s credit default swaps, default insurance and any other PMI or LPMI that’s been tied to the loan will be negotiated and the alleged “Lender” will reap over 200% profit off of your mortgage loan … and that’s without even applying for the title insurance payout (the principal amount of the loan less 27% administrative costs) because the chain of title is jacked up (due to the Lender’s own ineptness).

The next major ploy of disbelief is the then-servicer (on or before DAY 90) has its employees dummy up an assignment of mortgage or deed of trust and cause it to be recorded into the land records in the county where your home is located so they can “structure” or “manufacture” standing to foreclose.  The term “standing” in of itself intimates that the lender (or its servicer) has the right to do what it’s doing to you. Most attorneys I know assert “lack of standing” in almost every foreclosure defense, because the simple statements of the servicer (who claims to represent the real party in interest) are not sufficient enough to prosecute a foreclosure.

If your loan is in the MERS® System, it is likely to have been securitized, which means that the chain of title is really messed up an there is likely a REMIC (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit), a tax-exempt entity that soaked investors for loan money, who has no idea you’re in default (the servicer knows!) and the servicer comes in disguised as the Lender, retains an attorney, obtains a foreclosure, sells the house post-judgment and runs away with your earnings.  This is why mortgage loan servicers are in business.  You make gobs of money when 95% of the homeowners run away and leave their homes to the servicer and their law firms, who split the booty, post-sale. MERSCORP (in whatever form) and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. were created to bolster lighting fast transfers of loans electronically, that have allegedly been securitized (paid for with investor money instead of the bank’s own money) and sold and re-sold multiple times on Wall Street.  This can only happen if the loan is securitized.  MERS IS NOT (AND SHOULD NOT BE) USED IN PORTFOLIO LOANS!

If you just understood what I just said … the REMIC does NOT know when you are in default because the servicer is required to make your payments to the investors, even when you don’t.  When people realize this, they get really pissed off because all along they thought it was all their fault.  The “noose” was tightened around your neck when you signed the mortgage loan in the first place!  Speaking of fault … did you come to realize the word “fault” and “default” are similar?  How do you know you’re actually in “default” if the servicer has been making your mortgage payments all along?   This is the “power over” debt collection game they play with you when you’re late on your mortgage payments.  All this time, the servicer has been making the payment for you and you never knew it.

These are only a fraction of the “truths” I teach at my workshops!

Homeowners who think they’ve been defrauded want to sue everyone tied to the mortgage loan.  THAT is the first big mistake that homeowners make.  That’s because their confusion has caused them to become angered (the third phase of foreclosure) for all the wrong reasons, to the point where they lose all rational consciousness in making proper decisions about litigation. Listening to people putting forth information and then acting on that information (without first vetting it just because it supports some sort of rational argument they have in order to make a living steering people down rabbit holes) accomplishes nothing either.  This is why many people become confused. Once they enter the cesspool of foreclosure cases looking for answers, they get so overwhelmed they don’t know where to turn or who to trust.

My research shows me that if the banks and mortgage companies were conniving and calculated enough to pull one over on you at closing, then the obvious objective is to give them their just desserts in return.  “Wise as serpents, harmless as doves.”  Going out and filing big lawsuits against lenders without a reason or any “litigation logic” using that same rationale is futile and fatal.  Why waste your money and your time?  The fact you are being foreclosed on brings an undue psychological burden on the mindset, which in turn induces stress, which in turn affects both your mental and physical health.  This is why 95% of homeowners “run away” and don’t fight.  This is why America can easily be “taken over” by the “party elite”, because most do not know HOW TO fight, let alone WHY.  If you knew HOW TO fight, wouldn’t the WHY develop into something more logical?   This is like taking karate or some other form of martial arts training.  There’s no “false hope” here because you are confident you stand a chance of winning.  You either choose to fight or you don’t.  You can still walk away from a fight and save your mental and physical anguish by formulating an alternate plan (otherwise known as PLAN B).

Everything from taking out the mortgage loan to fighting the alleged “lender” in court has a certain amount of risk.  Some of this risk is calculable.  Some of it is not.   You chose the path you are on for a variety of reasons and now you must choose the right reasons to either run and hide from your creditors or to get educated, stand up and fight them.   Filing bankruptcy only aggravates your struggle and to that end, I will explain that in the next step.

The journey begins with the chain of title … 

There is only one place that you’re going to be able to locate the foregoing and that is in the office of the clerk or recorder of your county records.  These folks get paid to help you search out the necessary documents.  If you live in a rural area with an underdeveloped county recording system, it’s highly likely that you will have to search all of this by hand through the index, which is organized by last name, then first name until you locate the recorded copy of your warranty deed.  This is your proof that title has been vested in you and no one else.

As a title consultant for many years, I can safely say that in most instances, this is your starting point.  You do not need certified copies of everything, just regular printed copies you can scan and mail to others who may have more research knowledge than you.  Getting together with other homeowners to discuss your findings after a visit to the land records may expose you to more research truths, which you need to begin your quest to justice.

You MUST collect the entire chain of title for your property in order to be able to fully analyze it (or have someone else that is more formally trained analyze it).  Skimping to only obtain the first couple of pages of a mortgage or deed of trust is just plain penny wise and pound foolish.  You need to see the whole document to see HOW you got screwed.  The devil is in the details!

Mortgage = Payments until Death  (Duh … “mort” … in several languages, means “Death”)

STAY TUNED FOR STEP THREE!  (I will discuss HOW the chain of title is used to formulate your case for trial!)

For more information on the Foreclosure Defense Workshop, click on the link!

I’m only doing this once this year!

For more information on Dave Krieger’s information library, CLICK HERE!

NOTE: Foreclosure defense attorneys are attending this Workshop!

4 Comments

Filed under OP-ED, Securitization Issues, workshop

NWTS IS CLOSING ITS DOORS; SHIFTS ITS FORECLOSURE CASES TO OTHER TRUSTEE MILLS

(BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED) — 

Boo, Frickety Hoo! 

Why is everybody in the foreclosure mill and related industries pining over the announcement by several news outlets that Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. (“NWTS”) in Bellevue, Washington is closing its doors?

I for one am glad to see them “out of here”, given the fact of NWTS’s propensity to allegedly foreclose on U.S. servicemen and women while they’re on active duty, in violation of federal law.  The closure announcement comes in the wake of the Justice Department’s lawsuit against the foreclosure mill trustee of violating the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (see the lawsuit HERE: US v NWTS, US W.D. Wash No 2-17-cv-01686 (Nov 9, 2017)

I have been aware of RCO’s bastard brainchild phasing out of its trustee service operations for some time now; however, NWTS has spun off its business to other foreclosure mill concerns like Quality Loan Service Corp, who has previously admitted in writing to screwing up paperwork related to non-judicial foreclosure actions. I do not make that accusation lightly.  For those who need proof of my allegations, see HERE: QLS Letter to Washington Attorney   If this doesn’t piss you off, nothing will.  It further proves that the “right hand still does not know what the left hand is doing” and that trustees, and I mean ALL trustees, cannot be trusted.

I maintain that all of the non-judicial foreclosure mills have been participating in the foregoing kind of scheme, especially involving recorded documents which they themselves caused (in one way, shape or form) to be manufactured for the purposes of standing to foreclose, because: (a.) they all know it’s a numbers game in the number of challenges they might face by homeowners who lack the funds to fight; (b.) they all know that a majority of the homeowners will capitulate and run away from the entire process without a fight at all, allowing them unfettered access to what amounts to “legalized theft”; and (c.) with RCO buying up area newspapers to reduce costs of foreclosure, it’s still making money whether NWTS is operating or not because of the shifting of cases to other concerns.

If you find yourself now facing another concern attempting to non-judicially foreclose on you, claiming to have taken NWTS’s place in the que, check the following in your local land records:

  1. Was there a recorded SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE by the Lender?   According to the Deed of Trust (generally at Paragraph 24), ONLY the Lender is allowed to substitute the Trustee, NOT the servicer and NOT the previous Trustee!  The land records must reflect a valid SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE … BEFORE … and not AFTER … the commencement of a foreclosure sale proceeding.
  2. Did you receive a NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND TRUSTEE’S SALE from NWTS in the past?  In order for a future sale to occur through another Trustee source, you have to have received such a notice, which must be recorded in the land records AFTER the SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE was legitimately filed by the Lender.   If you don’t see that chronological sequence, you have suspect issues in the chain of title to potentially challenge the illegality of the attempted foreclosure sale.
  3. Was there a previous chain of title issue with the substitution involving NWTS?  Many folks stop looking backward, when the real damning evidence is already of record. Look to see who SUBSTITUTED NWTS as the Trustee and examine the chain of title involving alleged Assignments of Deeds of Trust.  If you happen to find an Assignment that merely conveys the Deed of Trust and NOT THE NOTE, for the sake of conducting a non-judicial foreclosure sale, you may have issues with 15 USC §§ 1641(f)(g), for violations of the federal Consumer Protection Act, as well as the Washington Consumer Protection Act (or any related state consumer protection act, for that matter).

This isn’t legal advice folks. This is just plain common sense, based on research.  Legal challenges happen in all sorts of ways.  Responsible American homeowners will fight these monsters.  Even though NWTS is closing its doors, it still has to “face the music” regarding the aforementioned federal lawsuit.  The misbehaviors of NWTS are not isolated incidents. In fact, these misdeeds are common to all trustees!

For those in judicial foreclosure states reading this article, understand how lucky you have it that you have “your day in court”, because in non-judicial foreclosure states, all foreclosures are deemed to be legal unless otherwise challenged in a court of law or of equity.  Otherwise, you don’t get the privilege of fighting the monster.  If the banks had their way, ALL foreclosures would be non-judicial.  It’s the proverbial draining of American homeownership, turning the U.S. into a nation of renters or even worse.  Homelessness is up a point this year (over 554,000 people are living on the streets) according to hud.gov: Housing and Urban Development: Homelessness Data Exchange   Don’t become one of them!

Sadly, just because NWTS is folding doesn’t mean another foreclosure mill trustee service won’t surface in the future that’s funded by principals of the RCO law firm or some other scumbag law firm looking to make a dishonest buck.

Most of my research has shown that according to most laws and rules, Trustees involved in foreclosure sales are supposed to maintain neutrality.  However, we know that’s really NOT the case, right?

On another note, I further would wonder why I still haven’t received a refund from the Washington State Bar Association of my $50 Application Fee for neglecting to respond to my application (not even a denial letter) to have the WSBA sanction my conducting a Continuing Legal Education class for attorneys in Washington State on quiet title actions and other end game strategies.  You can see HOW the WSBA contributes to the power base of the banking industry in Washington State, right?  The crooks roost in all quarters folks!  How many legislators can you name that the banks and their lobbyists have bribed to pass legislation (favoring the banks) recently?  And you still want to borrow money from those banks?

Coming up on Clouded Titles Blog … 

There’s more than one way to skin a REMIC!  Dialing up the pure intellectual masturbation!

Arguments for getting past the typical bank attorney statement that “the Borrower isn’t a party to the Assignment”!

Two easy ways to take the bank’s attorney “out of the driver’s seat”!

… and other more interesting stuff!

Say NO! to MERS mortgages!

Borrower only from banks that portfolio their loans!

(like Fort Sill National Bank)

That was not an endorsement … just an example!

Get back to the old ways of banking!

Support public banking!

6 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

Nothing has changed much in Washington State, post-Bain!

Op-Ed —

August 16, 2012 is a day that will go down in Washington State’s history when it comes to dealing with the issues created by the licensed lenders in that State who rely on MERS to cover up “dead spots” in the chain of title to properties.  I’m attaching the Supreme Court’s en banc ruling to refresh your memory and to fill in any gaps that might be missing in your thought process.

BAIN V METROPOLITAN MORTGAGE GROUP, INC. ET AL

Only a handful of states in the union agreed with the Washington Supreme Court’s decision insofar that MERS was NOT a real “beneficiary” because it didn’t loan any money and therefore, had no interest in the borrower’s promissory note.  In fact, during the oral arguments presented before the Supreme Court, counsel for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (not “MERS”, which means MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.; I’ll explain in a moment) could NOT identify WHO owned Kristin Bain’s mortgage loan! That didn’t bode well before the justices, who were stunned at the lack of knowledge and almost sheer arrogance of MERSCORP’s counsel.

You see, what the Washington State Supreme Court justices were never presented with, and thus did not have in evidence to be able to make a determination of, is that the Rules enacted by the parent of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. (then MERSCORP, Inc.), specifically note that under Rule 1 § 1, when the term “MERS” is used, it means the PARENT, NOT THE CHILD!  Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is THE CHILD. The lack of knowledge by the attorneys for the homeowners (for Bain and Selkowitz) and the deliberate omission of MERS’s own “rules” by its representative counsel should be cause for alarm in the way cases are being litigated all across the country!

THE PARENT AND THE CHILD ARE NOT THE SAME!

In fact, they are two distinctly separate Delaware corporations. This was a contrived scheme of mass proportions, created in favor of the banks, which caused tens of millions of fraudulent and misrepresentative documents to be recorded into the land records of all 3,041 counties, townships and boroughs in the United States, literally clouding titles to over 80-million properties!

Thus, when Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. shows up in any legal proceeding, it’s the “empty shell” (a bankruptcy-remote entity with no assets or liabilities; no income or expenses; and no employees) that shows up in court … NOT THE PARENT!  MERSCORP is footing the legal costs in every proceeding (because it is a roughly $2.7-billion a year business model) that operates and argues on the flawed idea that the agent (nominee) and the beneficiary can be one in the same party.

The Tennessee Supreme Court completely gutted the MERS business model in the Ditto decision. MERS v DITTO_TN Supreme Court rules against MERS!  To NOT understand all of the basic tenets of real property and mortgage law could be fatal to you in your foreclosure case!

This is why I am hosting the Foreclosure Defense Workshop in Orlando on September 30-October 1, 2017.  (see below)

Part of the “good fight” in dealing in foreclosure actions is knowing the truth and how to find it (or go after a determination to get at it).  This is a lot of what we are teaching in the workshop, even if you’re going pro se!

You have little time to make reservations, because airfare is going up the closer you get to the date and the number of seats to the event has dramatically shrunk.  If you are even thinking of remotely preparing yourself to “fight the good fight”, you need to be at this event!  Since Hurricane Irma hit Florida and knocked out a lot of the internet connections, many Florida consumers won’t know about this event until this weekend and likely, there will be an onslaught of registrations at the last minute.

FDW ORLANDO REGISTRATION FORM

Meanwhile, back in Washington State … 

It appears that the regulatory agencies that govern the behavior of the banks aren’t falling all over themselves to stop the continual process of recording documents in the land records that makes use of MERS as a “beneficiary”, post-Bain.  Here is one such Consent Order, issued in 2017, that exemplifies my point (sent to me by one of the readers of this blog):

Planet Home Lending

The Consent Order appears to have noted that a violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act [RCW 31.04.027(2) and (13)] occurred when Planet Home Lending, a lender licensed under Washington law to conduct business in the State, caused several Assignments of Deeds of Trust to be filed in counties all across Washington State, post-Bain, characterizing MERS “as the beneficiary when MERS did not hold the corresponding promissory note.”

While I was not provided with any specific Assignment to review, I would guess (and my guesses are usually pretty right on) that the Assignment was created by employees of the servicer of the loan. Recognizing this scenario is important for two key reasons:

  1. If a consumer is economically affected by the recording of one of these subject, suspect Assignments, the consumer would have to assert a specific violation of the foregoing state statutes; and
  2. If the Assignment of Deed of Trust used MERS to characterize the Assignor as a “beneficiary”, post-Bain, for the purposes of transferring any rights in the note to a REMIC, or even more importantly, to the servicer, who then commences a foreclosure action against the Property, then there may also be a violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1641(f) and (g), the Federal Consumer Protection Act.

Through the use of the federal citation, the case then becomes a federal issue, so one would have to get a competent attorney to sort through which would be more effective to prove (as a Plaintiff) against Planet Home Lending, the violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (which has a supporting Consent Order to apply to the case as evidence) or the Federal version of the same.

The problem is however, that the Consent Order implies that Planet Home Lending didn’t admit to guilt, even though the State found violations of the foregoing Act (under Agreement and Order Paragraph C). For all intents and purposes, the Order basically said, “Don’t do it again!” and by agreement, any further violations of the Order would be dealt with in the future (to what extent, we do not know).

Now, I can surmise that all of the litigious folk out there affected by the issuance of this Consent Order have realized that there is nothing stopping a consumer from bringing a private right of action against Planet Home Lending (or any other lender or servicer violating the Washington CPA). However, I caution those considering such to use due diligence in determining “damage”, whether actual, compensatory, exemplary or punitive.  Without some sort of financial loss, it may be more difficult to press forward with a CPA violation claim.

That being said, it appears that suit may be brought under the foregoing state statutes in lieu of any decision like Yvanova v New Century Mortgage Corp. et al (California) and Miller v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 726 F. 3d 717 – Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 2013 – Google (Texas) that gives consumers the right to challenge the creation of (and subsequent recording of) a suspect document affecting chain of title in the land records of any county in Washington State.  This may also apply in other Consumer Protection Act-related statutes across the country, but it is likely that a consumer would have to conduct some pretty specific discovery (against the mortgage loan servicers’ employees and notaries) to see who ordered the creation of the document and who caused it to be manufactured, for what purpose and determine accountability.

It should also be noted that civil conspiracy is defined in virtually every state statute.  While this term does not in of itself, constitute a cause of action in the literal sense, the act of one or more actors getting together and conspiring to do a thing to scheme that adversely affects the economic or financial well-being of another would certainly be an issue to be considered.

In Florida, for example, Florida Criminal Code § 817.535 makes it a third-degree felony to record a document containing false and misrepresentative information with the intent to deprive another of their property.  While consumers cannot commence criminal proceedings directly, they can file a criminal complaint with the local sheriff’s department (the county land records are the sheriff’s jurisdiction) and pursue a criminal case that way, especially if discovery shows that a civil conspiracy to create the document indeed occurred. You should understand that (based on our past dealings with a certain sheriff’s department) detectives at the county level are either lazy, in defiance of or lack the knowledge to properly and fully investigate such matters, as evidenced by the Osceola County Sheriff’s Department, who could find no wrongdoing in the OSCEOLA COUNTY FORENSIC EXAMINATION.

The foregoing subject matter is only PART OF what we’re going to cover in the upcoming Foreclosure Defense Workshop.  Thus, the tools and weapons that pro se litigants and litigants being represented by counsel are being refined to be more effective and the means by which documents are challenged has also been refined (AND PROVEN) to work!  There are three specific things I’m going to be sharing at the workshop in this regard, in addition to the newly-developed tactics by Rich Kalinoski, the attorney lecturing to those attending this workshop.

Again, this is the ONLY workshop we’re doing in 2017.  We have not decided whether we’re going to do another workshop again. Rich is very busy implementing his new developments and for this reason, may stifle any efforts to conduct a workshop in the future.  Know this … legal tools will be available to all of those who attend!

In the meantime, keep researching and “fighting the good fight”.

Dave Krieger is the author of several books, including Clouded Titles, available on his website.  He consults attorneys in foreclosure matters and drafts pleadings and conducts research for attorneys and litigants. Mr. Krieger is Managing Member of DK Consultants LLC in San Antonio, Texas. 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under OP-ED, workshop

The Pooling and Servicing Agreement: Why eat just half the enchilada?

Securitization Issues — Throughout the trials and tribulations of pouring over thousands of documents, the same issue keeps popping up in my head.  Why are attorneys claiming to rely ONLY on the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “PSA”) to establish REMIC failure and nothing else?

How many cases have you read in the last two years that there was strict reliance on the use of the PSA to win a foreclosure case?

I have read of very few instances that go into extreme detail in an attempt to educate a judge (unless you’re in one of the “sand states”, which got hit the hardest and well before the rest of the nation caught on), who really didn’t major in securities law (unless you happen to be “seated” somewhere in the Southern District of New York), all the while opposing counsel is objecting to entering the PSA into evidence at trial.  At the end of the day, who has the note with the right to enforce it seems to be the bottom line.  This issue has also come under severe scrutiny, because when MERS and securitization are involved, it means the promissory note you signed is now an electronic memory and does not consist of what the bank’s attorneys claim is “the original note”.  (I will save the forensic discussion of promissory notes for another argument and another article!)

Perhaps it’s because some well-meaning individuals out there in the legal world told the attorneys that the crux of their argument was in the PSA.

I say, “No, it’s not just the PSA! You’re only eating half the enchilada!”

I am writing this piece (not for my own self-gratification) for the sake of those who have gotten past Securitization 101.  I know most of the blog readers understand what a PSA is and what it contains.  They subscribed to this blog in the past because there was something worthwhile posted on here, so the assumption is … the PSA to the readers of this blog is at least within their sphere of knowledge.  This may be a little “deep” for those of you reading this post for the first time.

In my travails, I have discovered that the “blind eye” seems to include such terms as “Cut-off Date” and “Closing Date”, when referencing the PSA, yet these terms are not found in the PSA.  They are merely referenced.  To find these two dates, what must one do?   Go to the front of the bloody 424(b)(5) Prospectus and find it within the first few pages of the document’s definitions.

I am not being paid by SECINFO.COM to tell you that it is much easier to search for REMIC information on this website than many of you have experienced on SEC.GOV.  I only use SEC.GOV to order complete certified copies of the 424(b)(5) Prospectus, because I want to eat and digest the whole enchilada. Why?  Because I’m hungry for the truth, that’s why.  I want the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing BUT the truth (the WHOLE truth).  That means, if I have to peruse a bloody 400+ page prospectus that defines the parameters of how a REMIC behaves, I’m going to get this knowledge in my craw, because it’s going to come in real handy and some point and this is an RMBS Trust we’re talking about, it’s somebody’s house that is affected by what’s in this bloody document!

If man’s thought processes anything like electricity, it’s following the path of least resistance.  There are “securitization gurus” out there in the hinterland that I tip my hat to because they’ve gone above and beyond the call of duty in reading and understanding the entire “enchilada” (the sales pitch), and you know who you are, but they keep pointing to Section 2.01 (or its relative counterpart in some other types of PSA’s) and not referencing (and including as evidence) the WHOLE truth.

I say, the judge needs to “get smart” in order to play the game.  But … most won’t.

I’ve also heard that judges in America really don’t give a shit about you and whether you lose your home. You didn’t make your payments so you deserve to, whether someone else made them for you or not.  Judges just want to clear their court dockets as quickly as possible to convince the populace and hierarchy that keeps putting them on the bench that they are efficient in their duties and that their political careers and pensions are priority #1 (and go play golf and vacation with their families).

If you wonder what others are saying about judges across America, just dial up The Robing Room and see for yourself!

It seems like the foreclosure defense community just wants to “cut to the chase” to inform the judge that the “path of least resistance” is out there.  All of us lazy folk don’t have time to read the whole enchilada.  (“Your Honor, we know you have a full docket today, so out of professional legal courtesy, we’re not going to waste your time … because after all, we’re ‘officers of the court’ and we have a duty to represent the concerns of the court first, the public second and our clients … in last place!  We have a business model to run, Your Honor, and we can’t do that wasting time in court, when we can make money playing the delay game.  Oh, wait!  That’s part of Your Honor’s game too!  Drag the proceeding out as long as possible so the homeowner runs out of money, gives up and walks away, right?  Either way, the banks win!”)

The foregoing thought process sounds like many a pissed-off homeowner that has lost faith in America.  You know what?  I don’t blame you.  I’ve lost faith in America too.  I’ve learned that you cannot depend on the charity of others in your quest to survive. However, we live in a society that condones and promotes such behaviors (it’s called socialism) and the multiculturalized American society gobbles it up like a hot enchilada.  But … they eat it so fast they don’t take the time to digest it and it passes through their systems like “shit through a goose” (to quote Gen. George Patton). Yet these same pissed off homeowners are quick to criticize anyone else that’s trying to do the right thing, as if we’re all destined to be miserable in life.

This is the chief concern when I don’t see the entire 424(b)(5) Prospectus (in certified form) being offered as evidence at trial. One can always “tab” the document with miniature, self-adhesive type notes or make reference to those sections of the document in their written arguments so the judge will see it.  Bankruptcy judges have to deal with this all the time, because they’re concerned about debt, not chain of title.

So the question then becomes: Does securitization actually have anything to do with chain of title?  Do you know the answer?

YES! 

It’s just that Wall Street’s idea of “pure intellectual masturbation” hasn’t permeated into the crevices of America’s primary educational system.  Kids in school today don’t even learn “Checkbook 101”.  Nope!  They just want their allowance so they can go out and blow it on junk.  Wait a minute!  That sounds kind of like Wall Street in 2008 when everyone in the securitization game was being compensated into the millions so they could go out and party in blow, booze and hookers, doesn’t it?  Now, I suppose some of you out there are also picturing Dante’s Inferno, right?  Especially the Third, Fourth and Eighth Circles. 

When it comes to securitization, you simply CANNOT cut corners.  If you’ll notice, the entire 424(b)(5) Prospectus document, in whatever form, has some commonalities:

  1. It was signed under penalty of perjury under the Sarbanes-Oxley (“SOX”) Act.
  2. Virtually ALL of the REMICs have Cut-off and Closing Dates.
  3. The chain of title to the subject property (under attack) probably contains an Assignment of Mortgage or Assignment of Deed of Trust that makes reference to a REMIC by name (if it’s written correctly, some aren’t). This is where the REMIC shows up in the chain of title and becomes a “party” in the “adverse claimants to title” category.
  4. Most if not all of the time, the Assignment in question (also suspect to this very day) was drafted by the employees of the mortgage loan servicer you’re trying to deal with, using MERS or some other “made up” interest so the servicer can “hide behind the scenes”.
  5. All prospectuses make reference (somewhere in the document) of who the “players” in the securitization game are, generally they’re right up front.  These are offered to investors right up front, prior to investing, which also promoted the caveats (there were no guarantees), when the creators of the REMICs knew exactly what they were doing in running the reader around in circles (the “pure intellectual masturbation”) until they’re so confused they don’t know which end of the document is “up”.
  6. All make reference to who collects the money to support the distribution payments to the investors at the other end of the REMIC who claimed to be harmed when the REMIC drags you into court or announces it’s selling your home on the courthouse steps.
  7. In some way, shape or form, most if not all prospectuses contain a Pooling and Servicing Agreement of some sort, which explain HOW mortgage loans are supposed to be conveyed into the trust pool and when.

The problem is, none of the banks ever followed their own rules.  The servicers of the mortgage loans began paying your mortgage loans for you when you hit your financial “tipping point” and couldn’t make them any longer (or wouldn’t because you found out the truth).  When the borrower stops making payments, the servicer starts making the payments for the borrower.  This is mandated by the Prospectus, but again, how convenient THAT was left out of the legal equation brought before the Court.  We couldn’t have the judge thinking some rich uncle was making our mortgage payments now, could we?

UPDATE: A NEW TWIST OF THE TALE! 

Some REMICs have a third party involved.  That third party is called the Credit Risk Manager.  It’s generally an outside company that is paid a fractional portion of the REMIC’s gain to monitor the activities of the mortgage loan servicer.  This would mean that this entity has documentation (that it gets on a regular basis, IF it’s doing its job properly) being supplied to it by the servicer and the Trustee (if certain aspects of the REMIC’s operations are applicable) for evaluation to make sure that the servicer is doing its job correctly in compliance with the REMIC’s own governing regulations.

To insist that the Credit Risk Manager may be in breach of his fiduciary duties to the REMIC would depend on three (3) things:

(1) The Credit Risk Manager (if one is shown, not all REMICs have them) was not compliant in keeping track of the servicer and its records;

(2) The Credit Risk Manager failed to report the failure of servicer compliance to the Trustee; and

(3) The Credit Risk Manager was getting a paycheck for doing nothing.

This is another classic example of REMIC failure!

OCWEN FESSES UP!

The judges just want to give your homes to the bank.  They really don’t have time for details.  Right?

Again, I post the following for your consideration: Ocwen’s Letter to 6 Government Agencies

The foregoing transmission is 9 pages long.  I would suggest, as part of your digestion process of “the whole enchilada”, you focus on the parts of the Prospectus that talk about payments being made to investors to keep the REMIC going.  What happened in 2008 was pure “overload” on Wall Street’s financial system.  When you read this Ocwen transmission, you will probably be infuriated, because this affects NOT JUST OCWEN, but EVERY mortgage loan servicer out there!

Read the 9 pages again!  The servicers are the parties doing the foreclosures in the name of the lender.  The problem is, you don’t have a written agreement with the servicer.  You have a written agreement with the Lender.  If the lender’s out of business, the servicer is still collecting mortgage payments and is still paying the REMIC’s investors.  When you stop making the mortgage payments, along with your taxes and insurance payments, the servicer makes them for you!

In the case of a GSE, like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae or Sallie Mae (WHAT?  Student loans are securitized too?), they too manage REMICs and are knee deep in securitization failure just like the rest of the published REMICs contained within the SEC’s databases.  If there is default insurance involved anywhere in the securitization process, someone got made whole (or at least the payments kept coming in to pay investors), so who is “harmed”?

THE SECURITIZATION CHAIN

The way that the OCC Asset Securitization Handbook contemplated the path of cash flows through the securitization chain started at the top, with the Borrower.  Even U. S. Bank, N.A. admits the Borrower is a party to the Securitization Chain in its 4-page brochure, here:  US Bank Brochure – Role of the Corporate Trustee

So then, why do bank attorneys in court keep downplaying that the Borrower has nothing to do with the Assignment of Mortgage, when the Borrower clearly is AT THE TOP OF THE CHAIN? (taken from p. 8, virtually right up front, just like the Cut-off and Closing Dates are located in a Prospectus).

 

The “Originator” and “Servicer” work in tandem with (but independent of) each other to make the loans and then collect the payments so the investors who “buy into” the securitization scheme get paid (on the distribution date, generally the 25th of every month).   The “Rating Agency” issues ratings for the bonds the investors would be able to buy (this is shown in the Prospectus, NOT in the PSA).  How much more evidence do you need that the Borrower’s payments to the chain have everything to do with compliance of the entire Prospectus, even when the Borrower DOESN’T MAKE THE PAYMENTS!

For the purposes of this discussion, we move within the path of the securitization chain to discuss WHO makes your payments when you can’t.

The following item was taken from the front end of the Prospectus (NOT in the PSA, which I why I say ya’ll spend so much time focusing on the PSA, you miss the good shit**):

 

 

So, if you think I’m making this stuff up, think again.  This paragraph (taken out of the front end of a Free Writing Prospectus in conjunction with the REMIC paperwork offered on SECINFO.com, which I subscribe to) explains the same thing that the 9-page letter Ocwen wrote about who makes the payments when the Borrower doesn’t.  So, these are the “baker’s dozen” questions I leave you with:

  1. Is your written contract (the Security Instrument) with the mortgage loan servicer or with the lender?
  2. Does it say anything in your Mortgage or Deed of Trust that the Servicers may change during the life of your loan?
  3. Did anyone tell the mortgage loan servicer to make your payments for you when you couldn’t?
  4. Did the mortgage loan servicer handling your loan tell you that it was making your payments for you when you couldn’t?
  5. Did the foreclosure mill law firm mention in the foreclosure complaint that the servicer made the payments for you?
  6. When you asked the servicer (in discovery or through a QWR) for a payment history, did the servicer disclose ALL the payments made (including the payments the servicer made)?
  7. Did the servicer’s law firm misrepresent the character and status of the debt as being in “default” when it really wasn’t? [FDCPA § 807(2)(A)]
  8. As the result of Question #7, has the servicer been wrongfully trashing your credit reports? (FUTURE CREDIT DAMAGE, actual harm under Spokeo v. Robins)
  9. As the result of Question #7, did the foreclosure mill law firm attempt to collect payments from you that you believe were already paid by the servicer?
  10. As the result of Question #7, did the foreclosure mill law firm allege that the REMIC was the Plaintiff when the servicer had been paying the REMIC’s investors all along?
  11. If the servicer had been making the payments all along, was the REMIC and its investors actually harmed?
  12. In deed of trust states, are you non-judicial foreclosure victims now kicking yourself because you didn’t realize this information was in the Prospectus … and you could have truly fought this?
  13. If you retained an attorney to fight your foreclosure, why didn’t your foreclosure defense lawyer pick up on this?  (Remember, the path of electricity?)

Therefore, it would stand to reason that if everyone stopped making their mortgage payments on known securitization chains, the mortgage loan servicers now in existence would go broke overnight making everyone’s payments, as there isn’t enough money in their coffers to support doing that.  All of the RMBS’s on Wall Street would go under on the distribution date following the borrowers’ loan payment stoppage.

See how easy it would be to collapse part of the U.S. economy?

We’re not talking about the TBTF institutions that started all this garbage, we’re talking about the loan servicers that are the real parties filing foreclosure complaints trying to collect their “servicer advances” before the REMIC itself, which has been getting paid all along, gets any residual payments.  It’s the servicers that are lying to the courts in an attempt to reimburse their coffers for all the money they’ve stolen from everyone’s escrow accounts to keep securitization afloat! 

Eventually however, the investors would get stung.

Ignorance is bliss.

For now, I rest my case.

**The information shown above came from SEC filings on behalf of the Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I Trust 2006-AC1.

13 Comments

Filed under Securitization Issues