Tag Archives: PSA



(As exclaimed by Dan Akroyd to Jane Curtin on Saturday Night Live …)

Sorry … I had to do that because you can’t say that to opposing counsel in foreclosure court … as much as you’d like to!  Still, I’m not an attorney, I can’t render legal advice, but I have been listed on at least one attorney’s “expert witness list” for upcoming trials! 

My blood boils when I’m consulting at a foreclosure trial and I hear the bank’s attorney claim that the borrower has nothing to do with the PSA because I know damned well that the borrower (nor his counsel) has a comeback that they can waylay on the bank’s attorney in point-counterpoint fashion, which is why I went with the opener that I did.

The bank’s attorney doesn’t want the borrower opening up the subject of securitization failure, because in so doing, the REMIC finds itself without standing to foreclose.  End of story … because the last attempt is always (when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac aren’t involved) the use of MERS (through servicer fraud) “assigning” a note a mortgage years later into a REMIC trust. Securitization failure may look obvious on paper (what’s recorded in the land records) but it cannot account for the path the note didn’t travel.

The last trial I attended, I saw the bank’s attorney “step in it”.  You could hear her tiny little heels squish in the pile of dung she just sunk into asking the expert witness (who understands securitization) about the “closing date”, then suddenly realizing that she opened Pandora’s Box.  Sadly, the foreclosure defense attorneys need to climb on board with this thought process, as elaborate as it might be.  I’m going demonstrably put it into as easy a graphic as I can, using various scenarios (“submitted for your approval”, as the Twilight Zone‘s Rod Serling would say from the grave). You have to educate the judge!  You have to!  I don’t care if the other side jumps up and down with objections, you have to keep on keeping on.


First, let me share a pdf with you, written by (in my book) one of the most brilliant attorneys on record:


The foregoing even has “affirmative defenses” included in this paper, if you know what you’re looking for.  Thanks to Charlie, I used a chunk of his explanation and diatribe in a Texas Rule 736 motion I drafted for use by counsel, which, when coupled with a Rule 12 motion by the attorney (a motion demanding to know who the law firm was representing in its Application to foreclose), the law firm “non-suited” the foreclosure case (made it go away)!

I shall further elaborate, as I do in chain of title assessments where the last party to allegedly have the note and mortgage transferred to them is the REMIC … years after the fact.  The borrowers and their attorneys focus on the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and miss the whole enchilada completely.  It’s not just the PSA we’re talking about here folks!  It’s the entire “sales pitch” … I’m talking about the 424(b)(5) prospectus (and none other than).

The PSA does NOT contain your loan number!  The prospectus contains your loan number!

The prospectus contains well more of the governing regulations than the PSA, all neatly signed under penalty of perjury under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act!   When the bank’s attorney says the Borrower has nothing to do with the Assignment, why then are you stumped?  Why can’t your attorney object?  It can’t be because of ignorance, right?

However, just because your loan number is listed within the prospectus doesn’t mean that your loan is actually in the pool (or made the pool before the cut-off date).  Look at it in the simplest of terms:

  1. Why do lenders use the MERS® System?  

The lenders use the MERS® System as a means to register and securitize mortgage notes within the secondary markets.  However, before the note (and its accompanying electronic paperwork) can be traded (transferred, sold, resold, multiple times over), it has to be digitally uploaded into the MERS® System, which was created for the purposes of electronically transferring the note!  

This is why (when you look at your loan on the MERS® Servicer ID page, the loan reads “ACTIVE”.   That means, it’s “actively” being transferred (potentially multiple times over) from one entity to another while the Servicer’s name remains constant.  When you see the word “INACTIVE”, it means the loan is no longer being traded, most likely because it is NON-PERFORMING!  Who could get away with selling non-performing loans?  Only in the securities market can you get away with that!  This goes back to the late Judge Arthur Schack in the HSBC v. Taher case, which was reversed and assigned to another judge, because the powers that be (the Appellate Department) said Schack went too far (in vetting the truth about robosigning using parties claiming to be officers of MERS). So, as long as the note doesn’t end up in its “final resting place” (as claimed by REMICs in millions of foreclosures), we have an “ACTIVE” note trading within the MERS® System.

2. The servicers who subscribe to the MERS® System purposefully abuse it!

The MERS® System, as I have previously noted in other posts, as well as in the OSCEOLA COUNTY FORENSIC EXAMINATION, allows servicers and their minions and subordinates within their default divisions or their contracted third-party document mills, to “manufacture” standing by creating assignments out of thin air, utilizing the name Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., accompanied by what is proclaimed an “official title”, with only flimsy, non-notarized proclamations by William Hultman or his “successors” within MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. potentially attached to the pleadings as a means of “verification” of the use of the title by the “nominee” (who also thinks it’s a beneficiary, which it’s not).

Regardless of their “signing authority” or other Limited Power of Attorney proof of anything (as Limited Powers of Attorney can be falsely created to reinforce a claim by the REMIC that certain servicers are covered to do exercise certain powers under the power of attorney), there is nothing in the MERS Rules of Membership that forces the users of the MERS® System to “play by the rules”.  In fact, all of the users of the MERS® System have to “indemnify” MERS and its parent of any liability in connection with the creation of these documents, which means it’s “open season” in the fraud department in the creation of these documents.

   3. Parties outside of the MERS® System are allowed to participate with the servicers in creating the documents employing the use of the MERS® System! 

During the Osceola County Forensic Examination, my team discovered (in hundreds of assignments) the use a law firm in the creation of the assignments.  Many times, the assignment itself contained the words, “Prepared by:”, with either the name of the law firm, a law firm attorney or a non-lawyer working for the law firm.  My take here is that this is where you have RICO issues because the servicer, a law firm, a notary and multiple employees of both, are tasked with the creation of the document.  We are not just talking civil RICO issues here, but also criminal RICO, because the document is generally created under the direction of the law firm handling the foreclosure (in mortgage states), or in the alternative, a document processing company (e.g. LPS, CoreLogic, etc.) being involved in engineering the “proper parties” onto a piece of paper that is going to be relied upon in court to foreclose on the property.  The law firm handling the foreclosure will then rely on an assignment that it was involved in creating to steal the home, knowing full well that the assignment contains multiple misrepresentations which are not provable because the assignments clearly show the note and mortgage were transferred into the REMIC years after the Cut-off Date!

This is why I intend to write a follow-up paperback aptly titled, “How To Screw MERS!” (or something like that), to explain how to circumvent the MERS®System in your dealings in real estate (part of your due diligence before you buy a piece of property using a “MERS Member”, which is false, because the alleged “MERS Members” aren’t really “members”; they’re user-subscribers of the MERS® System, through the use of an executory contract with MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. (which is nowhere to be found on your note, your security instrument or the assignment).

4. The “Electronic Tracking Agreement – Warehouse Lender” clearly shows who the “players” are … and MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. is one of them!

If you look at the attached: eta_warehouse_template_v6-mers-and-borrower4, you will see what I am describing here, as to who the “electronic agent” really is. Is this disclosed to you at closing?  Hi there boys and girls, can you say “Truth-in-Lending Act violations right out of the gate?” … sure you can!  (playing on Mr. Rogers’ voice).

Do you see where your “name” is inserted as to “Borrower”?   Didn’t think so.  That’s because you’re not the Borrower, the originating lender or mortgage broker (like that pesky “Rocket Mortgage” and other digital online services that make it so easy to “get approved in minutes” for a mortgage loan).

Notice in the third paragraph where it says, “the Borrower is obligated to pledge the Mortgage Loans to the Lender”?  Notice the term used “Loans” is in the plural?  That’s because the “Borrower” in this agreement is the originating mortgage broker/lender and the “Lender” in this agreement is the “Interim Funding Lender” (like Countrywide, WaMu, IndyMac, etc.).  Look who the “Electronic Agent” is:  MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.!   What is an agent?  (hint: a nominee)

Then why isn’t MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. (the parent of MERS, the entity with all the money) plainly stated on your loan paperwork, including your Note? Where is the Truth-in-Lending Act when you need it regarding non-disclosure of the real “truth”.  It was hidden from you at closing?  That might even bring about suspicion for a RESPA violation as well.

Notice within Paragraph 4 of this agreement where it says that the “Lender and the Borrower desire to have certain Mortgage Loans registered on the MERS® System (defined below) such that the mortgagee of record under each Mortgage (defined below) shall be identified as MERS;”   Did you ever sign a paper like this at closing?   I’ll save you the time looking for it.  You didn’t.  That’s because the “Borrower” in this agreement, involving the placement of your loan into the MERS® System IS NOT YOU!  Did you agree to that?   Didn’t think so.  But it sure the hell explains how your loan got “registered” on the MERS® System, doesn’t it?

This was all created to be part of the securitization process.  This is why the entire process is flawed … and why it needs to be eliminated … and why the parties who created it need to be in prison!  The MERS®System is the platform through which the RICO acts were committed.  Indemnification or not, the platform is there … and it’s knowingly being abused.


This begs the question: How can you NOT be involved?  The assignment is talking about your very loan and mortgage (or deed of trust) being conveyed by the employees of the mortgage loan servicer (who can’t get the originating lender to do it because it’s more than likely defunct), whose employees create the document out of thin air, under the instruction from: (a.) one of the major title companies; (b.) the foreclosure mill attorneys involved in the litigation; and (c.) a third-party document mill tasked by the servicer to keep the transaction at arms length to avoid suspicion.  In any case, the document is a fraud.  They know it. And you know it.  But the judges don’t know it because no one knows how to tell the judge a thing or two about the real aspects of securitization because they know that 99% of these assignments are fraudulent and by ruling against the bank on securitization failure, they would open up a “three-ring circus” in their courtroom while jeopardizing their political futures.

The servicer uses its own “loan number” which generally does not match yours.  But when the bogus assignment is drafted (and many times backdated for a purpose) by the servicer’s employees or that of the law firm or third-party document mill, your original loan number and name is on the assignment.  Why not simply ask the judge to take your name off that document (since you’re not involved in it) and we’ll call it a day?   You know how that will end up, right?

You first have to object to the attorney’s comment that you’re not involved in the PSA, because technically, the PSA talks in general about operations within the REMIC itself.  If you’re going to enter the PSA as evidence, you’re shortchanging yourself and your case.  What you should be entering is the entire 424(b)(5) prospectus.  It still costs $4.00 a copy from sec.gov on their forms page.  They have a contract with United Parcel Service to ship it to you at no charge.  You pay $4.00.  Get the whole prospectus.  The front end of the prospectus is what contains the cut-off and closing date, not the PSA.  Have you ever noticed that, or did you just take someone’s word for it?


Notice the foregoing “Page 8” and where it came from … the 1997 Comptroller’s Handbook issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.  This handbook was issued before MERS Version 3 came into being.  Notice how the first paragraph below the diagram talks about the Borrower being a party to the securitzation chain?   Do you understand why?  Because in simple fashion, in order to make the chain work (the whole system), the Borrower’s payments facilitate the income stream to the investors, who received non-recourse bonds on the Closing Date (or Start-up Date, according to IRS terminology) of the REMIC.

That is, unless securitization failure occurred at the Start-up Date.  This begs the use of an expert witness at trial to can testify as to the facts, followed by the use of depositions of the parties creating the document (the assignment) to reinforce the fraud being plied on the court.

Actually, securitization failure occurred BEFORE that!  It occurred at the Cut-off Date!

It couldn’t have happened because after the note and mortgage was uploaded into the MERS® System database (owned by now-MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.), I believe the original paperwork was no longer needed and was shredded.  My forensic examiners and I have heard this on more than one occasion, right out of the mouths of the bankers!  Thus, when the Borrower went into default: (a.) the servicer handling the loan dummied up an assignment, knowing already that it didn’t have the original loan; (b.) the servicer went into the MERS® System and downloaded the “uploaded electronic copy” and printed it out and took it into court (after adding a bunch of other “allonges”, “indorsements” to the note to try to tie the chain of title together with the chain of custody of the note.

Let me be clear here!  I do not believe that the allonges and the indorsements were completely added until AFTER the original note was retrieved from MERS. The latest article by Neil Garfield, which contains a statement: “I have obtained confirmation from a large bank vendor (Visionet Systems, Inc.) that it rectifies “lost notes” by reapplying the “signature images” upon stored copies. –Bill Paatalo, December 10, 2016.” goes to the core of the following scenario:

My wife and I attended a trial in Fort Myers, Florida where Bill Paatalo was admitted as an “expert witness”.  I went for two reasons.  First, I wanted to see what kind of questions the bank’s attorney and the judge were going to ask Bill about his expertise and the facts of the case; and second, we had dinner with Bill after that to further discuss the case, which ended up without a Final Judgment being issued that day (in court) because the judge wanted more education, in the form of trial briefs by the attorneys, which were due yesterday (I have not seen the brief).

This clearly also shows that the Notes were, at one time (as I suspected) electronic copies.  And riddle me this (as the Riddler said to Batman) … where do you think Visionet Systems, Inc. got the copy of the note?  Visionet is NOT a user of the MERS® System (check for yourself like I did) and therefore, they had to get the note from somewhere (more than likely the servicer, who IS a user of the MERS® System).  This now begs the deposition of someone at Visionet Systems, Inc. to verify this chicanery.

There are at least two cases supporting this conclusion! 

If you’ll simply Google a pdf of “In re Saldivar” (Texas) and “Glaski v. Bank of America” (California), you can see from these two cases that the court finally recognized that if the note and mortgage (or deed of trust) weren’t assigned until years after the Cut-off Date”, there is no verifiable evidence of WHEN or IF the note and security instrument actually “made it into the pool of loans” within the REMIC trust! This is what Bill Paatalo testified to at trial in Fort Myers.  When attacked by the bank’s attorney on the possibility that the note and mortgage made the cut-off date and that the assignment was strictly a memorialization of that fact, Paatalo responded to the “fact” that the assignment itself shows the date of the assignment being two years after the REMIC closed; thus, there is no possibility that the governing rules of the REMIC were complied with.  I am referring to the entire 424(b)(5) prospectus here, NOT just the PSA!

The OCC clearly contemplated that the Borrowers were the parties signing the notes and security instruments, which contained the provision (in paragraph 19 or 20, depending on which long form security instrument was employed at that time) that “the note, or a partial interest in the note” may be sold or transferred. It says nothing about the parties involved in that transaction, the “boss of the note” at foreclosure proceedings, or securitization of the loan.

Not only is the chain of title screwed up (because the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing), certain parties came in contact with each other to “dummy up” paperwork to steal the house.  It’s that plain and simple.

That my friends, is a short-form explanation of the formula for securitization failure in roughly 3200 words, despite the fact I’m not an attorney nor do I render legal advice.  Share this with everyone because the life you save may be that of someone you don’t know that desperately needs to view this educational post!

BTW: For those of you wanting a progress report on the new FDCPA book I’m working on … I’ve about 40 pages to go!  I’m trying to get it done by the end of the year!  It contains some real damning information every “consumer” should know about, from foreclosures, to credit cards and car loans to student loans … all of which have been securitized … including relevant case law to back up the education I provide in this book! 

Dave Krieger, Clouded Titles



Filed under Chain of Title Education, Op-Ed Piece


The issues discussed in this post are for educational research purposes only and does not constitute the rendering of legal advice.

It was a glorious day for David and Mary Ellen Wolf when a Houston, Texas jury awarded them in excess of $5-million in damages in their case against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Carrington Mortgage Services.  See the Charging Instrument here: Wolf v Wells Fargo Bank et al_2011-36476_Nov. 6, 2015_Charge of the Court

At issue for the jury to determine was whether the Assignment of Lien was valid under Texas Law … you be the judge: Wolf-Transfer-of-Lien-NCMC-to-WF-10.15.2009

If you’ll notice the robosigned signature of Tom Croft, claiming to have some authority vested in him by the then-defunct New Century Mortgage Corporation, it contains rubber stamped “markers” on the document and is overwhelmingly TOO LATE to be transferred into the Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2006-NC3, whose cut-off date was August 1, 2006, as shown on page 9 of the pooling and servicing agreement (“PSA”), attached here: SEC Info – Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2006-NC3 – ‘424B5’ on 8:8:06.

If you’ve never read a PSA, you’ll find it in an easy-to-read format on SECINFO.COM.  Once you get inside of the trust pool (all you have to do is conduct a search using the series number of your trust, e.g. “2006-NC3”) information, look up the “424(b)(5) prospectus” information.  The PSA is buried inside of that document, as attached above in the Wolf case.  Some of you may have had the pleasure of navigating this site already, so please forgive my indulgence on behalf of those who have not done so.

The reason these documents have to be filed with the trust by the Cut-Off Date is because on the Closing Date, which is the start-up date of the REMIC trust, the bond certificates are issued by the Trustee of the Trust to the certificate holders (the investors who put their money into the REMIC that allegedly funded your mortgage loan).  For those of you who do not know, “REMIC” is an acronym for Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit.

All documents, including the Assignment or Transfer of Lien, and the Note, have to be conveyed BY THE CUT-OFF DATE (which in this case was August 1, 2006) into the trust pool in order to be accepted into the REMIC and receive tax-exempt status, according to the Internal Revenue Code and through congressional mandates found in 17 CFR 210, 228, 229, et seq.  This CFR reference (Code of Federal Regulations) is a 127-page document that was given legal effect when in was published in the Federal Register.  You can find it online simply by Googling it and asking for it in “pdf” format.  This is one of the items we will be sharing with you in more detail in the upcoming online COTA Workshop, being published in sections, on the CloudedTitles.com website.  I highly encourage you to sign up for it if you haven’t attend a live COTA Workshop in the past.

There are many of you reading this blog for the first time that may not even know that DK Consultants LLC has held workshops of this nature since May of 2012.  We no longer hold them in live fashion because of the out-of-pocket expenses for the attendees for coming to these 3-day events.  However, the Quiet Title Workshops have been fine-tuned to a 2-day event (Saturday and Sunday), to allow you to fly or drive into an area and stay a night or two if that’s your choosing (and your schedule can accommodate it).  We are finalizing the 2016 Quiet Title Workshop schedule for the following cities and months:

  1. Redondo Beach, California (Crowne Plaza Hotel & Marina), January 30-31, 2016
  2. Tampa Florida, Tampa Airport Marriott Hotel, April 2-3, 2016
  3. Chicago, Illinois, May, 2016 (location TBA soon)
  4. Las Vegas, Nevada, July, 2016 (location TBA soon)
  5. Baltimore, Maryland, September, 2016 (location TBA soon)

Now that you have the tentative scheduling, you can make plans to attend one or more of these workshops. Al West and I will be lecturing at these events.  You get to ask questions about quiet title actions and learn how they are processed.  Subscribe to these posts for more updated information as it becomes available.

Sum and Substance of the Transfer of Lien

The problem with the transfer of the lien in the Wolf case is that the jury determined the transfer was fraudulent at the time the document was executed and the parties executing it knew it was fraudulent when they executed it.

This is one of the key issues portrayed in the OSCEOLA COUNTY FORENSIC EXAMINATION conducted by DK Consultants LLC, released to the Clerk of the Circuit Court on December 30, 2014.  You will also notice that the law firm’s name is mentioned on the Transfer of Lien as well.  This was done for a purpose: to create standing for the named entity (the “assignee”) to foreclose on the Wolf’s property.  Whenever a law firm’s name is mentioned on any assignment, you can bet: (1) the law firm had a hand in drafting the assignment; (2) the law firm had a hand in directing the execution of the assignment; and (3) the law firm had a hand in causing the assignment to be recorded in the land records where the property is located. This would make the law firm criminally liable under the RICO statutes.  There are over two dozen law firms mentioned in the Forensic Examination from Osceola County, Florida that are soon-to-be-scrutinized by the Justice Department, who the report was recently referred to by Congressman Alan Grayson’s office.

One of the other patterns demonstrated in the Forensic Examination was that it was customary to see an assignment “pop up” shortly BEFORE or AFTER the foreclosure sale or judicial foreclosure action was commenced in order to facilitate “phony standing” for the foreclosing party.  Ask yourself, “Why did it take them so long to issue the assignment, if they knew exactly when the transfer of the note and mortgage took place”?  Because the parties executing the assignment DID NOT KNOW WHEN the actual transfer occurred!  How can you testify to something you have no knowledge of?  I think there’s enough case law establishing that.  Give me any state, I’ll find you a case that says that you can’t testify to something you have no knowledge of.  This could be construed as hearsay, which is inadmissable in court in virtually all instances.

So the sum and substance is (for your direct benefit) … always check the real property records at or near the time of foreclosure to see WHAT “pops up”.  You may have similar issues as the Wolf’s.  They were lucky in the civil realm that this case went before the jury. You can bet Wells Fargo will appeal the verdict as will Carrington.  I still want to see criminal indictments handed down for the fraudulent filings because there are criminal penal codes in place for that very reason. I’ll bet you do too!



Filed under Breaking News, Chain of Title Education, Financial Education, Quiet Title Education


The author of this post (Dave Krieger) is not an attorney.  Try to find an attorney near you that does quiet title actions as successfully as Al West (I want proof of the winning cases) … and I’ll let him TEACH the bloody workshop and pay his/her airfare and expenses to boot!  I’m not handing out legal advice today (nor will I ever, because the state bars, who are technically NOT affiliated with any Supreme Court jurisdiction, would love for me to stop talking about this subject, permanently), so if you need an attorney to assist you in a quiet title action, be prepared to do some serious digging to find one that knows their stuff.  I’ll tell you why in a minute … 

Since the beginning of this country, county land records were designed because America needed some sort of “fundamental order” in its keeping of land ownership records.   And in this case, I’m talking about the proper ones, not the ones influenced by the behaviors of today’s legislatures (at the whims of the banking cartels).  One of the many concerns within the realm of real property law, which I have had the pleasure of studying to the umteenth degree, much to the chagrin of others, began with my own experiences, which I write about in Clouded Titles, now in its final Mayday Edition version.

I expressly designed this work as an educational product because I found America lacking in the basic principals of real estate ownership that they may have either NOT learned in high school or college, or in the alternative, conveniently forgot about as part of the Age of Entitlement generations.  There are two issues here that I will discuss further, the key reasons for WHY quiet title actions should become part of your legal research and education to benefit your future and the future of America, if there ever is to be one.

There are a lot of Patriot-type folks out there that will disagree with my theories and my educational principles regarding quiet title, but I can tell you, I’ve done them … and they work.  Without quiet title, burps and hiccups in any given chain of title will render it impaired and thus, unmarketable.  You can disregard your belief that the “county” you live in has any authority, but let me tell you, you are in the minority of all of the registered voters who have faith in their county government, until their government proves them otherwise.  If you want change, then run for public office and change things!  First, have some respect for our current system, because it’s the only thing we have in place that stands in the pendulum path of civility versus anarchy.  Those of you out there who think you can still get title in allodium … keep dreaming.  We’re way past that point.

The first issue I will discuss here is WHY most attorneys DON’T WANT TO do quiet title actions!

Attorneys who specialize in real property law should completely understand the principals of quieting title, including pleadings and procedure, which Al West and I share in the workshops I host around the country.  Many attorneys ignore quiet title, because it represents (for the most part in a majority of the cases) a finite end to issues involving superior title to property.  This may also result in what is known as a “lien stripping” of a promissory note (which of course is what the judges suspect), which is then rendered unsecured because the quiet title action may end up causing the complete removal of the mortgage or deed of trust, if the parties who show up can’t prove they have superior title.  I said nothing about the Note here because the having a lien vis a vis a promissory note does not, in of itself, constitute superior title, unless the the Note has terms within it wherein the borrower gives up title to the property until the lien is retired in full.  Title theory states operate that way.  Lien theory states however, grant an “interest” in the property by what I call a “unilateral adhesion contract”, which is a one-way ticket to hell!  It’s called a mortgage or deed of trust.  Of late (within the last 15 years), these two documents have been tainted by a process called MERS (an acronym for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.), whose parent, MERSCORP (in whatever incorporated form it happens to be in at any given point in time) runs the obfuscation game for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the rest of its members.

Most attorneys refuse to study the convoluted ways of the MERS® System, which I believe was started up to hide the behaviors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the two Examined Members talked about in the April 13, 2011 Consent Order involving MERS and its parent) as they involve the chain of title (but also to the financial benefit of other users of the database).  Thus, attorneys do NOT know what my network of attorneys know.  Thus, they render inconsistent and improper pleadings (IMHO).  Thus, anyone who attends my workshops will probably come away with more information than attorneys learn about quieting title than they learned about in the whole of their law school.  Since they don’t teach MERS in law school (to the degree we do in our workshops and educational materials), you can bet most attorneys don’t want to be bothered with it when they can be making a monthly income off the backs of desperate homeowners who want to stay in their homes (sadly, most of them have no game plan for the future).

Attorneys who specialize in foreclosure defense have quickly learned (as I have surmised here) HOW TO stall a foreclosure.  During that time, they bill their clients with a monthly fee that similarly equates to their monthly mortgage payments.  This is the first wave of foreclosure fraud.  Many attorneys want their clients to file bankruptcy to stop a foreclosure sale, yet seemingly, they ignore the 10-year “stain” on their clients’ credit reports as a result of what?  Delaying the inevitable?  According to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (O.C.C.; who coddles MERS, because they’re all “in on it” together, in whatever sort of conspiracy you want to call it) has plainly stated on its website that bankruptcy is simply just a “stall tactic” (for the inevitable).  I would have to ask these folks at the OCC, “Whose side are you on here?”  All of what has taken place in the shaping of legislation has obviously been instigated by the banks.  It may be time to vote out those in the electorate who aren’t on “your side” when it comes to property ownership and maintaining proper real property records in the county courthouse.  The continuation of this current way of doing things illustrates my point on the need for quieting title even more.

Attorneys would rather have their monthly annuities coming in than seeing a finite end to their client’s case involving a quiet title action.  There is no guarantee that getting your title quieted will stop some bank (or MERS, as it unsuccessfully did in the Groves case in Texas) from pursuing you down the road, but the “law of the case” seems to make things a bit easier.  In short however, why have a “finite end” to things in favor of a monthly paycheck?   For example, if a law firm has 10 attorneys doing foreclosure defense and each one brings in a retainer (for a single client) of $5,000 and then bills them for two years at $1,000 a month; if each attorney had 50 clients to “stall” for, the gross income to that firm would be $2,500,000 in retainers and $12,000,000 in monthly fees.  That’s $14,500,000 for those of you doing the math.  Such a business model it is.  This is why it’s so hard to find an attorney to do quiet title work.  Another major reason attorneys don’t favor doing quiet title actions is that these attorneys simply don’t want to be chastised and ridiculed by a judiciary that appears heavily vested in the very securities that are screwing America!

Equally important however, which attorneys overlook, is HOW and WHY quiet title actions are necessary if our current “system” of property ownership is to be salvaged.  Attorneys have to educate themselves FIRST, then they can educate the judges, who will then understand WHY quiet title actions are necessary.  For the time being, most judges I’ve read up on think of quiet title as just another assertion for why a homeowner wants a “free house” when this is so far from the truth. It’s unfair and totally biased to ignore the fundamental basics of quieting title; thus, we will discuss it here in further detail.

Now let’s look at the other side of the coin … the second issue in this think piece … 

From all the research my collective “network” has done, quiet title actions will become fundamentally commonplace because of what the MERS business model has done to contribute to the corruption of any chain of title it’s involved with.  I will NOT buy a property that has MERS anywhere in the chain of title! I suggest you take my comment to heart here, especially if you’re an investor.  This can only be overcome by (again, my suggestion and not legal advice, in the “if it were me” scenario) stipulation to judgment in the quieting of title prior to the deal being closed.  That means that MERS would have to be notified, so it too can “sign off” on what rights it thinks it (or its member users) may have (which I humbly disagree that any exist other than what’s in the contract, which are feebly explained by language a third grader can’t understand, let alone a future homeowner who doesn’t ask questions before signing papers at closing).  I would love to debate Bill Beckmann about how successful his “business model” really is, because the only thing I see here is how it benefits the users of his “system” and NOT homeowners. I’ll explain in more detail in a minute …

Most title attorneys will NOT admit that Schedule B circumvents the payment of 99% of any claims against a title policy.  They wouldn’t want you to know that because the title insurance industry is a racket unto itself that I’m not going to go into detail about in this particular article.  I will however, discuss it in finite detail when the book THE QUIET TITLE WAR MANUAL is finally published.  One needs to have all of his “A” game on before venturing into the shark-infested waters of what I term the quasi in rem quiet title realm.   Title attorneys further do NOT care about MERS, because users of the MERS® System do NOT record proper assignments anyway, and most title companies (“the racket”) have subscribed to the fact that they can now “write around the defects in title” simply because MERS exists somewhere in the chain.  Schedule B is the key here.  Read it and weep, preferably BEFORE you buy a worthless homeowners’ indemnity policy.

I don’t give a damn about the insurability of a property, but the “system” of the way things are done around here seems to cater to that modus operandi.  I care more about the marketability of property and what a prudent and reasonable person would do when confronted with a piece of property that is loaded with chain of title issues. Hopefully RUN … in the opposite direction, far away from the deal!  I realize that this may leave millions of blighted homes out there unoccupied, but it’s about damned time we sent Congress and our state legislatures a message: Either come up with a game plan to keep owners in “the game”, or watch your system turn into total chaos!  You let the banks “dangle the carrot” and you looked the other way when you repealed the Glass-Steagall Act and then end result was a system of modified securitization that has now turned this entire country’s court system into a game of reckless indulgences by foreclosure mill law firms who are making beaucoup bucks off the banks to keep the “game” in play in courts across the country, as long as it can, in the end, take the property, by whatever means (including the manufacture of phony documents for the purposes of litigation).

This is another reason why the banks are trying to actively change the Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”).  This is the last resort of any viable defense in both foreclosure and quiet title actions.  The banks know this full well.  If they can totally tip the scales in their favor, borrowing money will leave a bad taste in people’s mouths once they see others getting screwed.  Wait a minute!  That’s already happening here!

Instead of being honest about how they make money, the major banks have corrupted the securitization scheme in favor of side bets, called credit default swaps.  The borrowers seem to never have any of this payout money applied to their bottom line, but the banks who started it are reaping big benefits.  Securitization DOES INDEED affect the chain of title, because the Pooling and Servicing Agreements (“PSAs”), are never adhered to.  These are the governing regulations established by Congress under 17 CFR 210, 228, 229 et seq.   Conduct a full audit of one of these securitized trusts and you’ll see why investors are screaming that the failure rate of these REMICs is 100%! 

This is another reason that MERS was created: to facilitate securitization.  This beta model has done more harm than good despite what MERS tells its members.  If you look at their policies and procedures, you can plainly see that MERS® System users violate MERS’ policies with wanton impunity.  This is another reason WHY quiet title actions are fundamentally necessary.  This is another reason why the laws need to be changed to allow property owners to finitely challenge any piece of paper that is publicly recorded having to do with their chains of title.  This is all part of quieting title and THIS is what MERS and the banks DON’T WANT.  But … it gets better! 

If MERS and its parent had their way, all quiet title actions and their respective state statutes that mandate quiet title would be declared unconstitutional and your case discarded! 

MERS does NOT care about your rights to property.  MERS and its parent, MERSCORP (the for-profit corporation that is going to find itself embroiled in more lawsuits in the future, I predict, when the real truth comes out) caused to be filed an amended pleading (in the California federal case in Robinson) that asserted that the California Quiet Title Statutes were unconstitutional!  Can you believe the arrogance?  Is MERS now better and more powerful than the state legislatures?   Have we elected a pack of wimps that can’t stand up to them?  You be the judge here, because you have the power to change things!   State statutes regarding the quieting of title were created for a purpose … not to be ignored by MERS!  MERS has some sort of liability somewhere in this equation (facilitating breach of contract possibly) and someday it will be called upon to ante up.

MERS seems to forget that there is language contained within the contracts in which it’s named as a nominee and beneficiary or mortgagee (yet these terms are NOT specifically defined within the mortgage or deed of trust, so they become conveniently arguable as to their meaning in court) that specifically gives homeowners a duty-bound, contractual right to defend title to their property.  This is why every State in the Union is now faced with conflicting rulings when MERS is a party to any action.  That is fact, not my opinion.  Further, MERS doesn’t get to cause a breach in contracts it’s named in, in the name of squelching a quiet title action!  You should take out your mortgage or deed of trust and read the first few pages, especially the “seisin mechanism”.  That part of the contract is your contractual duty to defend title.  If you don’t, YOU’RE IN BREACH OF CONTRACT!  YOU DIDN’T ABIDE BY THAT SECTION OF THE CONTRACT YOU SIGNED! THE LENDER SHOULD BE SUING YOU FOR BREACH, BUT THEY DON’T.  WHY? BECAUSE THEY’VE ALREADY BEEN PAID OFF BY CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP MONEY! (The money, by the way, that wasn’t applied to your “bottom line” balance as typically referenced in Section 23 of your long-form mortgages and deeds of trust.)

What?  You didn’t know all of this when you signed the damned note and mortgage/deed of trust at closing?   Well … welcome to the real world!

As long as there is a mortgage or deed of trust out there with this language in it, you have a contractual duty to quiet title!  Maybe the lenders and Fannie and Freddie will remove the seisin mechanism completely from their security instruments at the insistence of MERSCORP, and will change the language to read:

“BORROWER COVENANTS that Borrower may not actually own the property they just bought, or in the alternative, have just purchased a property full of holes that title companies will not insure. Borrower agrees that they are stuck with what they bought and further agree that any rights to litigate to correct title are hereby waived completely.”

When it comes to the foregoing language, the courts seemingly treat Borrowers as if they have no rights at all … because … they owe somebody!   Title doesn’t matter … because the judge said so!  Read some of the appellate case law on quiet title and you will see where appeals have been reversed and remanded to allow attorneys for property owners to amend their complaints to quiet title, because they didn’t get them right in the first place!   Then you will see WHY attorneys need to be educated on the subject! It’s a shame you have to appeal quiet title actions because foreclosure mills denounce this practice, ignoring the contractual right (which to me wreaks of tortious interference with contractual relations).  Again, judges seemingly ignore this too!

Further, there is established case law regarding the quieting of title.  We have compiled quite a bit of it for your research, which is on the 16GB USB flash drive every attendee gets as part of their research materials for attending these classes.  Sorry, you have to attend the classes.  We do NOT sell the flash drives a la carte with no explanation behind it as to how we came up with this research!

Still confused, this is what we have the upcoming quiet title workshop in Chicago for.  Visit the Clouded Titles website for details.  The Chicago event offers three different workshops on chain of title assessments (COTA), quiet title actions and a session on the Uniform Commercial Code, state-specific, taught by attorney Robert M. Janes, who I deem the UCC “guru” in America.   You and/or your attorney needs to especially attend THAT workshop if you’re going to attend any of the events we’re offering here!  This is the educational series you want to drop the dime on!  This is the only event remaining this year with this kind of discount offering. We will not be doing another event like this in 2015, maybe ever!  That’s right, I’m making a pitch here for your benefit!

When we start addressing the real issues involving quiet title, then American homeowners will become more responsible and productive citizens!

I should hold a contest to see how many folks out there have incorporated themselves as one of the defunct lenders of the past, or MERS, for that matter.  There seems to be a lot of brouhaha about those scenarios as well.  I will discuss two relevant cases in the future regarding this point (involving MERS and America’s Wholesale Lender; “AWL”; anyone with an AWL mortgage or deed of trust will want to pay attention to this upcoming article!)

As a sidenote … if the courts don’t want continuous and voluminous foreclosure cases wreaking havoc on their dockets, perhaps they should consider the positive nature of quieting title when a case dismissal occurs.  Why should the bank get a “second bite at the apple”?

Subscribe to this blog!  Share it with your friends!  This is provided as a free service For the People! 


Filed under Chain of Title Education, Financial Education, Quiet Title Education


The author of this blog post was recently retained to consult on a case in Palm Beach County, Florida.  This commentary are his express opinions and do not constitute legal advice.  If you cannot understand this material or need legal clarification, please consult with an attorney who is competent to litigate in such matters.  

While most of those living in non-judicial foreclosure states never see these individuals, states where the lender has to file a lawsuit and serve notice on the Borrower in order to complete a mortgage foreclosure brings to the forefront what I have been trying to advocate in my educational materials I disseminate in my enhanced Chain of Title Assessment (COTA) Workshops.  There is a COTA Workshop coming to Chicago, June 4-6, 2015.  One of more attorneys will be attending this workshop and will be answering questions about my procedures and how they are utilized in defending foreclosures, whether you are in a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure state.  Look for details to be posted soon on the Clouded Titles website.

On Monday, March 9, 2015, I was in court observing the goings-on in multiple foreclosure cases in two separate courtrooms in Palm Beach County.  I thought I would share a few items of interest for the readers of this blog site:

1. There are still very few homeowners that actually show up at trial.  This allows bank witness testimony to go unchallenged and thus, uncontroverted.  It is sad to see bank witnesses (I will refer to them as robo-witnesses here because that is exactly HOW they were behaving) complicit in helping the alleged bank get away with this sort of “legalized theft”.

2. The afternoon court session, which began shortly after 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 4A, was littered with these robo-liars.  Several of them were accompanied by foreclosure mill attorneys (who were probably out of law school no more than a few years), who basically got up before the judge, who allowed each attorney to tag team these witnesses in tandem to all of their foreclosure cases (at least a dozen that I could count), where the attorney read from a list of questions AFTER the judge swore the witness in.  The Q&A was 90-mile-an-hour case specific.  The robo-witness was clearly “coached” to read figures from a list provided directly to them by counsel to quote from, which no objection from the absentee homeowner.  The judge even joked at one point that maybe he could get an attorney who wouldn’t talk so fast.

3. Our specific case was reserved for the very end, so there were very few people in the courtroom (the judge, two clerks and a woman bailiff) besides the litigants. The trial, which included a robo-witness (Cynthia Stevens, who had testified at numerous events earlier that day, unchallenged), lasted nearly 3-1/2 hours (2:40-6 p.m.).  The judge took the whole matter under advisement.

4. During the trial, I took notes (so I could compare them to the nearly 200-page trial transcript), counting 46 multiple objections by Palm Beach County foreclosure defense attorney Lorelei Fiala (who herself used to work for a foreclosure mill but was fired for refusing to alter sworn documents within verified complaints being used in foreclosure cases).  Most of these objections came at the expense of the robo-witness on issues involving hearsay, lack of foundation and lack of capacity.  The witness was clearly flustered during some points of her testimony, especially when Fiala forced her to give a “NO” answer to Steven’s lack of actual knowledge of certain statements she was making at the behest of U. S. Bank’s attorney.  The judge actually had to force Stevens on more than one occasion to answer YES or NO.   In this author’s opinion, Fiala certainly came into the fight with a lot of her “A Game”, which is something you don’t see a lot of.

5. During the morning session, I observed a very well-dressed foreclosure defense attorney toss out a few objections to witness testimony, but failed to cross-examine the witness when given the opportunity to do so.  You might as well have thrown your hard-earned money away on an attorney who won’t go the mile like Fiala did during the afternoon session.

6. During the nearly 3-1/2 hour trial, the judge overruled BOTH sides and denied the bank’s renewed motion to correct a scrivener’s error involving additional information that its counsel wanted added to the Plaintiff’s name.  In sum and substance, for 5 years, Trust A was the Plaintiff.  Then right before trial, Trust B comes in and wants to be substituted into the case, which was granted.  Trust B’s counsel however, had a difficult time proving HOW it got the note and mortgage and the defense certainly wasn’t going to give them an easy victory, which in the end, was highly doubtful.

7. During closing arguments, defense counsel proffered the following flow chart, which the defendant homeowner (one of my learned students, myself and Fiala) worked on into the wee hours of that morning before trial.  I offer that to you for your perusal and consideration     Flow Chart – PAUL v.4 FINAL  in .pdf format.

8. It is interesting to note also in this trial that the Pooling and Servicing Agreements (PSAs) of BOTH Trust A and Trust B were offered and accepted into evidence by the Court.  This allowed both sides to argue its contents.  The Plaintiff bank of course offered Trust B’s PSA into evidence.  Defense counsel offered Trust A’s PSA into evidence to countermove the Closing Dates on BOTH trusts, which were BOTH in 2005.  The bank’s attorney maintained her poker face during almost the entire event.  Virtually all of her objections were overruled during the presentation of the defense attorney’s case.

9. Bank’s counsel tried to avoid the Assignments of Mortgage which were done in 2009 and 2013.  Defense counsel got both of them admitted as exhibits and in the end, it was the homeowner who took the stand and impeached the bank’s counsel with testimony that BOTH Assignments of Mortgage never made the Closing Date … and neither did their Allonges, which appeared to be “conveniently manufactured”, to give U. S. Bank standing to be an alleged Plaintiff.  The judge also examined the alleged photocopied “Allonges” to the Note, which were NOT attached in the original complaint five years earlier.  This really added to the bank’s demise as to credible testimony.

10. In the end, I did not see the bank proving what it needed to elementally prove its case.  The Flow Chart came in handy for defense counsel because it clearly showed the judge where (in simple terms), we were coming from.  This is a case-maker, because we framed our entire case for appeal, as it is highly likely in most cases that go down in Florida courts, that a judge will give a house to a homeowner.  I found it also interesting the way Fiala postured her closing remarks about, “We’re not asking for a free house, Your Honor … we want this case dismissed so they can re-file and present their case properly, not like they have here today!” We already had read the judge’s mind and “headed that common concept off at the pass” (as it were).

11. MOST IMPORTANTLY, the bank’s attorney admitted:

(a.) That it knew the title to the property was screwed up! AND

(b.) That the Servicer created the documents that were being used at trial!

Both of those admissions made defense counsel’s jaw drop (as did the rest of us)!   It is significant to note that this is what I have been teaching in my COTA Workshops … “If I can’t convey, neither can they!”   This goes to the fact that the bank, through its document manufacturing mills, littered the chain of title with so much crap that there’s no way they could legitimately SELL this property at a foreclosure sale without clearing title.  Good luck with that, if you don’t have standing.

Had the homeowner NOT taken the COTA Workshop, the level of presentation would have been less obvious in the flow chart.  The flow chart however, is simple, and says it all in one page.  JPMorgan Chase can’t have two “bites at the same apple” when transferring a note.

I can’t wait to see the trial transcript.  It will be even more interesting when we finally get a ruling to see WHAT the judge perceived as being the real triable issues of fact here.  I found this case to be significant for Florida for the following reasons:

(a.) It incorporated the pooling and servicing agreements from two separately-registered SEC trusts.

(b.) Both trusts’ Closing Dates came into play (like Glaski), citing the recent 4th DCA-released Murray v. HSBC Bank USA N.A. and McLean v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. cases.

(c.) There are very few cases in which the PSAs are even allowed to be discussed at trial because banks’ attorneys always object to the homeowner having the right to challenge them.  We used the PSA to assert that the Note, as well as the supporting documentation, never made either trust pools’ Closing Date.

(d.) We also used the PSA to defeat the robo-witnesses’ testimony that she reviewed the PSA to see if the note was in it, yet later backpedaled when challenged, that she wasn’t an attorney and couldn’t interpret the PSA and refused to answer further questions about her actual knowledge of the PSA.  This doesn’t look good for robo-witnesses.

(e.) There are very few cases in Florida that ever get close to arguing internal issues within a PSA.  Defense counsel presented (and got entered into evidence) a  copy of the Loan Remittance Report for January of 2015, obtained publicly from Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (as Master Servicer of the trust)’s website, wherein the homeowner’s loan COULD NOT BE FOUND!   That doesn’t say much for note ownership, does it?

More significantly, an appeal will follow if the judge grants the bank Summary Judgment of Foreclosure.  Countersuits are also likely.  That’s why you use a court reporter!  Again, I can safely attest that the COTA Workshop paid off here, even if you don’t end up becoming a COTA Preparer.

Now … you be the judge.





Filed under Breaking News, Chain of Title Education

Servicers and Loan Mods = Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing

The author of this blog post is a paralegal and cannot render legal advice. The items of interest shared in this article are his own opinions and do not guarantee any kind of legal outcome or draw any conclusions of law.

On many an occasion, I will talk to a property owner who will tell me that they are frustrated with the company that has been contacting them regarding their mortgage payments.  They are even more frustrated because many of them are upside down in their mortgages (versus what the home is worth) and want to modify their loan somehow.  I would like to share a few thoughts on that subject.

(1) When a homeowner signs a mortgage or deed of trust (both of these being Security Instruments which pledge the property as collateral), he places his property in what I like to call “legal limbo” for the purposes of granting a lien interest to a foreign counterparty (lender, who allegedly lends him money to buy the property in the first place).  Since homeowners are human too, they like to take the road of least resistance and generally wind up with whatever will get them into a property with the least amount of down payment at whatever terms are available. Sadly, this is what got them into trouble in the first place … and the lenders knew it when they made the homeowners their loans.

(2) What the homeowner does NOT understand is that when MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.) is involved, the intent of the Lender is to securitize the borrower’s paper.  Once the Borrower submits the Form 1009 Loan Application, the mortgage broker (who at every instance comes off as the  borrower’s friend and buddy) is shopping this loan (with the Borrower’s private personal identifying information … date of birth, social security number, credit and debt history, etc.) to every aggregate fund manager out there with a trust REMIC full of money.

(3) Most of the time, the Borrower does not understand the function of MERS or what a REMIC is.  None of this is explained to them at closing.  This too is by design. Until they’ve researched the subject (because they’re forced to) they still do not understand what has happened to them.  By the time they’re standing in front of a “foreclosure mill judge” (like the one’s in Florida that I read about that are denying homeowners due process in their kangaroo-style courtrooms), it’s too late.  Now I’m not saying that every judge in America is a bad judge; it’s just that many of them have “agendas”.  Getting screwed over and over doesn’t make sense until you’ve been bled out of every cent you’ve got and you’re facing one of these judges for the last time.

(4) In order to avoid this scenario, the upside-down already stressed-out borrower will do almost anything to stay in their home if given the chance. By the time the loan is in default (or alleged default), a new Servicer (I called them “bottom-feeders” because of where their noses typically sit at the point in time where they begin the process of stealing whatever’s left from the homeowner’s gains) is assigned to deal with the scenario.  The ambition of the new “servicer” is to drag you on and on, giving you false hope, racking up servicing fees, leading you to believe that a loan modification is available when the servicer and its employees know that a loan mod will never happen.

(5) Servicers are in business to make money.  They make money every month you don’t make a mortgage payment. They have $9/an hour cubicle employees (whether they’re a major bank or strictly just a plain old “servicer”) that are trained to string you along. What they really like is when they can use their “power over” techniques to either get you further into debt or take whatever savings or retirement money you’ve got access to and to send it to them, knowing that you will never recover, especially if you’ve been stuck with an interest-only loan (told by your friendly mortgage broker that you can refinance your loan in two years, only to find out that the intention from the beginning was to simply drain you of all your hard work and equity) or some other type of predatory lending device.

(6) I’ve heard horror stories of people draining their 401(k)’s and whatever IRA money they had stashed away for retirement to throw at interest-only notes they signed.  This does NOTHING to alleviate the problem.  It only makes it worse because whatever “escape and restructure” money you have available is also now in the hands of these unscrupulous servicers.  If this was me, I would NEVER give these people a dime of what’s in my savings (that includes liquidating other real estate to pay down on the primary issue). In a majority of the instances involving predatory loans, the servicing fees have been racked up to the point where the servicer already knows that the borrower will never recover no matter what and they can count on getting the borrower’s house too!

(7) Because the borrower’s note has been “securitized” (sold many times over BEFORE the borrower even affixes their signature to the loan documents at the closing table), a REMIC trust allegedly owns the borrower’s paper.  Or do they?  Every REMIC trust is governed by what is known as a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”).  You will hear that term bandied about the more research you do.  These PSA’s can sometimes be as much as 500 pages in length, designed to run your attorney around in circles and drive up your legal costs in research time.  This is also by design.  Why do you hear of stories where investor groups are now suing the sponsor-sellers of these REMICs for fraud and misrepresentation on the prospectuses they relied on to make their investment decisions?  Because of new “news” coming out from whistleblower ex-rating company employees who now claim Moody’s Investor Service was in on the “scam” to grade all of the bonds issued to investors as AAA-rated when they knew in fact all of the bonds were based on junk loans, made to people just like you … who the sponsor-sellers and their “servicers” also take for granted … and screwed you … the homeowner … on your end … just like they screwed the investors on their end.  What’s worse, the investors bought “non-recourse” bonds, which means the PSA generally does NOT allow you to get a loan modification … EVER!  The servicer hopes you’ll never figure this out, because the more they can string you along, the more money they make when they finally do get your house!

(8) Servicers also play another game … switching servicers at the last minute.  How and why does this happen?  Simple.  You have been promised a loan mod from Servicer A, who has (under HAMP and other guidelines) only a certain amount of time to “make it work”.  Only the Servicer knows that’s not going to happen because they’ve been instructed to promise you the moon to string you along even further until their “time” is up.  Then, right as a decision has to be made (after they’ve continually lost all of your submitted forms and paperwork), they change servicers and start the “HAMP Clock” all over again!  This is by design folks!   When are you going to stop believing in these liars and start taking your futures into your own hands so you don’t end up in front of a judge like Diane Lewis?  Based on what I’ve read, you and your attorney will meet with “blind justice” if you end up in her court.

(9) There’s also another issue you need to be aware of: Servicer Drive-By’s.  This is also another scam on the homeowner.  The reason the servicer claims they’ve hired a person to “drive by” your house is to: (a.) hang a notice on your door, telling you to contact your lender, which is really the servicer, not the lender; (b.) check to see if you’ve moved out yet (What? Really? You give up pretty quick, huh?); and (c.) because a computer in the servicer’s back office automatically tacks on fees in a timely manner, whether the “drive by” has actually occurred or not!  According to one attorney I’ve talked to, discovery on Bank of America servicing activities has actually produced computer-generated statements showing these fees added on when the “drive by” never actually happened!

(10) The servicers also own “auction houses”.  Nationstar owns “Auction.com”.  When foreclosure occurs, these people all run into court claiming they “own your loan”, when in fact, all that was assigned to them were the mortgage rights, not the notes.  People who rely on these “auction houses” for a “deal” on an REO are in for a rude awakening because title is probably NOT CLEAR!  Did you hear me on that one?  Many investors think they can simply rent out the property until it falls apart, whether they get clear title or not. That’s part of the game folks.  How can one minimize risk?   That’s what investors look at before they buy your house.  If there is any instance where title is clouded because of the behavior of MERS, the originating lender or the lender’s successors and assigns, you can bet the only argument you’ll get from their attorneys in court (who 90% of the time bring in false affidavits and make slanderous statements about “all they want is a ‘free house’ your Honor!”) is that you didn’t make your payments.  All the bank-owned judges care about is “meeting out bank justice”!  All “honest” judges are scolded for making “right” decisions.  The status quo out there wants your house so the collective body of banking entities can turn us all into a nation of renters and debt slaves!

(11) Ignoring the servicer isn’t going to make your problems go away.  What I’ve seen some folks do is sue the servicer in court on FDCPA claims (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692 et seq) for claiming to own a debt they don’t really own.  As time passes, you’ll see more and more of these suits being filed, because these are the only federally-based suits that seem to be working in slowing down or stopping foreclosures.  Yet, this too seems to only be a delay tactic, when loan modification is being dangled in front of you and your attorney by a servicer that knows what the “end game” is.  Sadly, most attorneys don’t get this ploy either.

(12) If you think you’ve gotten a “loan mod”, think again.  Have you ever read the terms and conditions of one of these creatures?  First, the servicer is NOT the real party in interest, so what right does it have to grant you a loan mod?   I’ve seen recorded loan mods where MERS claims to be the “lender”!  Attorneys who claim they have gotten loan mods for their clients will probably see them again in short order, because the loan mods are designed and structured to force the borrower to generally pay higher rates than what they were paying before.  The unfortunate thing here is … all of the servicers’ fees continue to get racked up.  You see … what the servicer really wants is your house.  They don’t care if you get a loan mod, because the loan mod is structured to fail just like the original loan you signed failed.  The servicers knew this when they baited you with the loan mod!

If you can tell I’ve nothing kind to say about these people, you’re right.  You could have demanded proper terms on a short-term, fixed rate and bought less house, but NO!  This is America, home of the over-achiever and dreamer.  This is how the government (who is in bed with these people) structured the whole deal to help the banks get where they are today.  You see, the government protects the banks … because the government (who most ignorant homeowners blindly trust) is in hock to the banks in debt it can never repay!  Thus, my 12-step, uh, er, 12-point description of servicer behavior only scratches the tip of the iceberg.  The way to NOT get involved with these people is to pay cash or structure your short-term (15 years or less) to succeed.  Buy only the house you can really afford, even in hard times.  If you are facing these situations, do your homework.  Visit my website at http://www.cloudedtitles.com for more information.  Feel free to download our FREE Chain of Title Assessment (COTA) Checklist from the SERVICES link on our corporate website, http://www.dkconsultants.us.

Good luck in your decision-making processes.  Once these servicers really get involved in your life, it is time to consider other options.

Leave a comment

Filed under Breaking News