Tag Archives: pure intellectual masturbation

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

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

Scenario … “The Set-Up”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ha! Ha! Ha!  Not!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why should that affect you?

Look at your assignment!

6 Comments

Filed under OP-ED

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!

7 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

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.

14 Comments

Filed under Securitization Issues