Tag Archives: REMIC

FLORIDA: To Defeat Bartram, One Must Defeat the Default Claim

OP-ED (NOT LEGAL ADVICE) — 

The author of this post is the author of several books, all of which can be found on the Clouded Titles website. The author is not an attorney but rather a disenfranchised political enemy of the United States Government and consults attorneys on actions involving real property law and consumer issues. 

I was rummaging through some recent cases when I found a case involving HSBC Bank USA, NA who was acting as a Trustee for a REMIC, which got me thinking (which for me, can be dangerous at times) about the idea that every new missed payment constitutes a new default date and thus a new cause of action.  This is the downside of Florida’s infamous Bartram case.

See the referenced case here: HSBC Bank USA NA v Sanchez et al_4D17-1085 (Feb 28, 2018)

While perusing the above-referenced case, it suddenly dawned on me that this was a case involving a REMIC (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit). Being the researcher that I am, I decided to take a look at the Prospectus for this REMIC … and what do you think I found?  Not the Prospectus?  You’re right about that.  (Why does this NOT surprise me?)  What I was looking for was a 424(b)(5) Prospectus because it would have probably contained information regarding the cut-off date, the closing date … and especially the distribution date (to the investors, of money paid by the servicer, which in the above case was probably Wells Fargo Bank, NA).  Why is this important?

If the investors are getting paid every month, then how are they harmed?  What right does HSBC have to go into court and collect on behalf of the certificate holders of the Luminent Mortgage Trust 2007-2 if distribution payments to the investors were being paid every month?  Wouldn’t that defeat a default date?   How would we know if we didn’t know what to ask?   It is highly likely none of this was considered in the defense of the Sanchez borrowers.

The Trustee “allegedly” came into court claiming that the Borrowers missed multiple payments before, during and after the pendency of the proceedings. Being the dutiful Senior Judge that the Hon. Barry Stone allegedly is, he misapplied Bartram, found for the Bank, and subsequently got reversed by the 4th DCA.  Notice also from the last paragraph that the 4th DCA couldn’t find where Judge Stone made a determination that the Trustee Bank was damaged and remanded the case back to his court.  This was a per curiam decision (which means all judges on the appellate panel agreed one the same sticking points). This would mean (to me) that the servicer’s attorneys “didn’t get it right” in their contrived pleadings.

My whole point here is this:  If a REMIC is involved, wouldn’t it be nice to find out about the ADVANCES section?   This is the section of the REMIC’s own governing regulations (NOT THE PSA), contained in the Prospectus, wherein the servicer (or in the alternative, the Master Servicer), is mandated to make the Borrower’s monthly payments to the investors if it reasonably believes it can collect the payments from the Borrower.  The Distribution Date of almost every REMIC occurs between the 20th and 25th of every month and the payment is made to them as the Borrowers within the tranches of the REMIC pay the servicer (who distributes the payments).  When the Borrower misses a payment, the servicer makes the payment anyway.  So how are the investors harmed?  How was HSBC harmed?  How was there a “default” when the servicer was continually required to make and thus would keep making the payments?

Wait a minute!

WHO is actually paying the law firm for the Trustee to foreclose?  The REMIC?  Nope.  U.S Bank has admitted in its own brochures that, as a Trustee for a REMIC Trust, does NOT know when borrowers are in default (probably because they get reports showing the servicer has been making the payments for the borrowers when they can’t make them).  We have come to find that the servicers are the entities paying the law firms to come into court and misrepresent the payment schedules.  I am only aware of a handful of cases where attorneys have seen payments actually made by the servicer show up on a loan payment schedule where the servicer complied with the terms of the Prospectus, signed under penalty of perjury under Sarbanes-Oxley.  So then … why are we nitpicking at “when’s the last time the borrower made a payment” when we should be nitpicking at “when’s the last time the servicer made a payment on behalf of the borrower to prevent the distribution date from being interrupted”.  This IS a big deal!

The allegations made by all servicers is that the Borrower is in “default”, all the while the servicer is hiding the fact that the servicer made the payments to the investors, who have been getting paid religiously.  You see, the servicers have a Servicing Agreement with the REMIC.  They get to go into court and attempt to recoup the payments they’ve made on behalf of the borrowers to the investors.  Do you have a contract with the servicer?  Nope. Didn’t think so.

Your mortgage was signed by you, representing a unilateral adhesion contract with the originating lender (who is probably using Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. to securitize the mortgage loan), NOT the servicer.  The REMIC sets up credit default swaps, default insurance, PMI, LPMI and requires the seller to pay for a title policy to insure the chain of title, when in fact, the falsely manufactured assignments we see in most cases is a clear attempt by the servicer to commit perjury upon the land records (F.C.C. § 817.535).  When the lawyers for “the Bank” come into court and regurgitate all of these allegations, they are part of the conspiracy to commit felony perjury on the court because they are employed by the servicer, who is trying to recoup payments they made on behalf of the Borrower, NOT the Trustee.

IMHO, this case bears a lot deeper “digging” through discovery in a new cause of action against the servicer and the law firm bringing the case on behalf of the wrong party.  The REMIC has probably been paid off several times over when the Borrower actually did miss a payment.  The REMIC then went in and “cashed in” on the aforementioned policies and collected on those policies so it could continue to make payments to the certificate holders.  There is no mention of this in the foreclosure Complaint, is there?

The servicer then files an Affidavit through its representative, claiming that the REMIC Trust, the certificate holders and the Trustee have been harmed because the borrower missed making the mortgage payments, all the while it has been meeting the Distribution Date deadlines set forth in the Prospectus.

By the way, this REMIC filed a 15d6 notice with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on January 25, 2008 (BEFORE the financial crash), claiming that it had less than 3oo investors and was no longer required to file reports to the SEC: SEC Info – Luminent Mortgage Trust 2007-2 – ‘15-15D_ on 1:25:08   This would indicate that distribution payments are probably still being paid on ALL of the loans that allegedly were put into the tranches of the REMIC Trust, which can be found HERE: SEC Info – Luminent Mortgage Trust 2007-2 – ‘FWP_ on 4:24:07 re: Lares Asset Securitization, Inc.

Notice that Lares Asset Securitization, Inc. is listed as the Depositor?  I guarantee you that nowhere is this Depositor mentioned on any assignment, endorsement or allonge anywhere in the Sanchez’s paperwork.  THIS would be in violation of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA), which is part of the Prospectus.   What generally happens is that the servicer is doing the foreclosing (by written Power of Attorney with the Trustee) in order to collect all of those “missed payments” it had to make up by paying the investors when the borrower didn’t make them.  It would appear that despite the REMIC’s collecting on all of those insurance policies, it profited from the collection of those policies to the point where it could continue to reinvest those profits as capital, avoid paying taxes because of its pass-through tax-exempt status and continue to make the payments to the certificate holders (investors) every month.  There is no proof that Lares put that Note and Mortgage into the Trust pool, is there?

So, to be honest … yes … the borrower indeed may have missed their mortgage payments, but are they really in default if the servicer made the payments for them?   The results of this case obviously beg for more “behind the scenes” attention (discovery) to WHO is coming to collect and why, followed by the appropriate civil and criminal action against those responsible.  In Florida, Florida Criminal Code § 817.535 has a civil remedy as well as a criminal one.

And here … we’re arguing about default?

To find out more inside detail, read this Report: OSCEOLA COUNTY FORENSIC EXAMINATION

Hear Dave Krieger every Friday night at 6:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) on WKDW-FM!

 

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under OP-ED

Those who implicitly trust in the legal system will get screwed by it!

(OP-ED) — 

The author of this post is an author and consultant to attorneys (and a paralegal) on real property matters and his comments (especially in this post) are of his own opinion and not that of others in the legal system.  Those who wish to obtain legal advice must ferret out competent legal counsel and retain them while monitoring the activity of those representing them in the maze of confusion we call “the American legal system”.  This is his humble opinion and not legal advice. 

I am constantly getting letters and emails from people who are “getting nowhere” using the services of attorneys.  They’re either being overcharged or under serviced, sometimes both.  What’s “fair” (a liberal term) in the “legal system” (conservative in nature, for the most part) will not be achieved a majority of the time. Many litigants (or wannabe litigants) attempt a feeble shot at going pro se, which can spell doom if you later decide to retain counsel after you’ve already screwed things up.

The legal system is rigged to benefit those who can afford to play in it.  I don’t care what any attorney tells you, if you don’t have money to pay them, what justice is “served” becomes limited in nature.  I have only found a handful of attorneys that I would consider to be “competent” to handle real property law matters and I’ve been researching this area of law for over 10 years.  That doesn’t make me an expert either.  I actually have an attorney who IS an expert witness in real property matters that many attorneys who are litigating foreclosure cases will NOT call to the stand to testify because it “might upset the judge” which they have to appear before regularly.  So the client loses his foreclosure case.  This happened last month in a courtroom in Tallahassee, Florida.  The attorney for the homeowner clearly had the bank and its witness in a vice, then opted NOT to “close the door” using his own witness to “slam the bank’s lawyers” for bringing false and misrepresentative statements on the Court.  This is what happens when attorneys DON’T DO A THOROUGH JOB because they lack the smarts, the sensitivity or at least, common sense, as to HOW TO “tighten the noose”.  Remember, most winning cases have to be appealed. Cases which have implications of criminal behavior by opposing counsel may never see an appellate court (but may rather be settled out of court, many times to the benefit of the homeowner) … or even the light of day, if they are litigated properly.

In other cases, clients are paying attorneys a monthly fee (in addition to a hefty retainer) and not getting proper billing statements as to WHAT work is being done and HOW many hours it took to accomplish said work.  Some attorneys take fees specifically to conduct depositions and then don’t take them (for whatever reason).  Whenever the client asks the attorney to supply them with a statement on account, the attorney rebukes them, makes them feel like a debtor in a debt collection action, or strong-arms them in a legal stranglehold of the attorney’s own making.  Justice benefits those who work in the “system”.  If an attorney is holding you “hostage”, you may wish to consider replacing them.

It’s no wonder I’m seeing an uptick in pro se litigation.  It’s no wonder I’m seeing more and more pro se litigants lose.  Pro se litigants generally did NOT go to law school.  They don’t trust attorneys … but they’ve never argued a case.  They are like electricity (they want to take the path of least resistance).  As long as there are banks out there trying to steal peoples’ properties, the American legal system will be afflicted with burgeoning dockets and implicit behaviors, both from the bench and the attorneys’ tables. Pro se litigants wandering into these venues uninformed are more than likely going to get crucified.

The American judiciary (both state and federal) have various “agendas”.  I have found that you have to research the judge you’re appearing in front of (what cases they’ve ruled on; how many were appealed and reversed; are they pro-bank, etc.).  You will never know whether you or your attorney “coulda, shoulda, woulda” been able to have succeeded unless you know who the referee is.  If the referee pays monthly on his mortgage, you can bet they’ll want you to do the same.  You then have to be able to handle “agenda questions” like:

(1.) When’s the last time you made a house payment? and

(2.) Are you in default?

When you hear questions like this from the bench, the judge’s agenda is: “This is my courtroom and I will find facts to determine WHO loses their home today!”  Most if not all pro se litigants will blindly think that the judge is entitled to these answers and will freely give them, not realizing that the judge’s agenda is to “clear his docket” as quickly as possible and/or is pro-bank.  The judge will get YOU to admit to these questions so he can “close the door” on you and move onto the next case.

I have read numerous cases where the court record indicates that the homeowner admitted they were in default.  What horseshit is that?  HOW do they know they’re in default?   Is it up to them to prove they’re in default or is it up to the bank to prove they are in default?  If a REMIC is involved, I’ve seen court records (and talked to attorneys who have seen court records) wherein the BANK’S SERVICER actually made the payments for the homeowner when the homeowner couldn’t make them, so then, WHEN and WHO made the house payment becomes an issue that most homeowners (pro se) and their attorneys (who aren’t in the know because they don’t have, or take, the time to do their research) miss that argument altogether.  Did you get that?  THE SERVICER MADE THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYMENTS FOR THE HOMEOWNER, then went into court and lied to the judge and told the judge the homeowner was in default, when in fact, the REMIC’s investors were getting paid every month!

Cases are won and lost based on a series of arguments, misstatements and missteps.   If the judge in your case is largely moved to rule against you based on emotional ploys by the bank’s attorneys (use of the term “deadbeat”; “They’ve lived in this house for 10 years without making a payment your Honor and we want our house back now.” … that sort of thing), then you are sunk before you walk in to their courtroom.  It helps to attend trials in their courts if at all possible (some judges don’t allow anyone but the actual litigants on the docket to appear in their courtroom for a reason) to see how they act and react to the various arguments.  Conversely, if you don’t do your homework (or your attorney doesn’t do his), you’ll lose anyway.  This is why over 95% of all homeowners who are facing foreclosure RUN AWAY!  This is why we have so much shadow inventory.

Not all attorneys are competent and honest. If it’s your house we’re talking about here, then the question becomes, “What are you willing to do to protect it from unscrupulous or unlearned attorneys?”  If an attorney that was representing me called me “out of the blue” and said I needed to send him $5,ooo right away, I’d ask them what the money would be used for.  If I didn’t get what I paid for, I’d demand the money back or get another attorney.  Attorneys should provide billing statements to their clients; however, most sole practitioners have no time for that, which is the “downside” to retaining them.  I would not want an attorney who only specializes in personal injury cases to represent me in a foreclosure matter because they haven’t won any cases in those kinds of forums; it isn’t their specialty; and they lack the knowledge to be able to defend against unscrupulous bank attorneys in those “shark-infested waters”. That’s like hiring a dentist to do brain surgery on your next of kin.

I am not an attorney referral service.  Most states require you to be licensed to have an attorney referral service.  Most people do not ask an attorney how many cases they’ve won in a particular area.  I can recite the names of attorneys who have won quiet title actions; however, when you then dissect how many were tax deed cases versus the harder-to-accomplish quasi in rem foreclosure cases, the number of successful attorneys diminishes ten-fold (at least what we know from the court record).  You have to vet the attorney to make sure you’re getting what you pay for. You have to discuss with them how many cases they’ve won based on what causes of action.

Many cases don’t make the court record (by design).  We already have learned this through other honest attorneys’ publications, where they have challenged certain legal publications’ decisions to only put in cases that favor the banks and not pro se homeowners (or in the alternative) or the more competent attorneys’ wins.  This is another unwritten fallacy of American jurisprudence.  As a result of closed-door settlements and sealed pay-offs, most homeowners do not know WHO won the foreclosure cases and why (because they were deliberately hidden from public view).  A classic example is that of Bank of America trying to get a federal bankruptcy judge to “delete” the massive case against them, which the judge refused to do Sundqvist-Memo-Opinion and rightfully so.  Here, we have an honest judge that wants to do the right thing by not just the homeowner, but also the public at large.

Pro se litigants not only miss filing deadlines … but when it comes to pleading cases, they don’t know how to plead cases.  Take for example one appellate decision out of Texas:  In this particular instance, the author of the pleading (the homeowner) decided to make use of quotes out of my book Clouded Titles, which is a book, not a legal primer in which to quote diatribe to bolster your legal arguments:

Brown v BANA_Tex 5th App Dist No 05-12-01382-CV (Nov 25, 2013)

It does not bother me that the Texas 5th Appellate District knows who I am, but the fact the homeowner extensively quoted my research (as shown on Page 4 of the ruling) even stymies me.  What’s worse, the term “robosigning” has more of an emotional connotation to it, sort of related to fraud claims, which have also fallen on deaf ears in the courts, as in the Texas case of Reinagle v. Deutche Bank National Trust CompanyReinagle v Deutsche Bank Natl Trust Co, 5th App Cir No 12-50569 (Jul 11, 2013)

I put this stuff in here to show you the following:

(1.) Homeowners get so bent out of shape that they use stuff in their pleadings that they shouldn’t;

(2.) They do not attack the sufficiency (or the lack there0f) of the other side’s pleadings;

(3.) They express their complaints using meaningless allegations, rather than defeat the other side’s attempts in making unfounded declarations without objection; and

(4.) They quote from my book, which is like letting stuff out of your research arsenal that is meaningless to the Court.

To prove a suspect robosigning issue, one would have to take depositions of everyone involved in the creation and execution of the document to see who ordered it; who acknowledged it; who typed it up; where it went to after it was recorded; what powers of attorney are connected to it, etc.  Taking timely depositions in a court case is vital to its success.  Generally, I’m seeing civil conspiracies pop up as the result of document manufacturing; however, failing to depose all of the involved parties will prove fatal in knocking out an Assignment of Mortgage or Deed of Trust from the land records in a Cancellation & Expungement action (C&E).   We managed to succeed in a Tampa, Florida case in getting a Release of Mortgage cancelled and expunged from the land records. Now the end game claimant has more hurdles to jump over in attempting foreclosure.

The bottom line here … knowledge may be power … but not having the wisdom to use it may cost you more than it’s worth.

3 Comments

Filed under OP-ED

CFPB UPDATE ON OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC …

BREAKING NEWS —

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

Update on The CFPBs Enforcement Case against Ocwen Financial Corporation

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

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

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

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

FDW ORLANDO REGISTRATION FORM

There are still a few seats left!

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

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

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

1 Comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, Securitization Issues

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 exacting 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?

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.

THE SECURITIZATION CHAIN

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

Eventually however, the investors would get stung.

Ignorance is bliss.

For now, I rest my case.

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

13 Comments

Filed under Securitization Issues

SECOND FDCPA WEBINAR FEATURES ACTION AGAINST OCWEN!

BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED — UPDATE (JUNE 19, 2017)

The uniqueness of “kicking someone when they’re down” doesn’t even come to mind here, even in light of the dilemma I created for myself when I delivered a copy of the two-volume, 778-page OSCEOLA COUNTY FORENSIC EXAMINATION to the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Armando Ramirez on December 30, 2014.

This is one of the reasons why bad press is still “press”.  Maybe Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC is delighting in all of this unwanted attention.   As of today, it’s stock is still trading.  I wish I’d have known in advance of the issues confronting the mortgage loan servicer would come to a head on April 20, 2017, as I would have seriously shorted Ocwen’s stock and made thousands of dollars doing it.  Darn!

However, given the issues surrounding Ocwen’s reliance on one of its affiliates, Altisource (headquartered conveniently in Luxembourg) and Ocwen’s REALServicing platform, you can bet that there’s a good chance that any time Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC sends you a Monthly Mortgage Statement, it’s riddled with accounting errors.

Significantly, these errors can result in demands for payment which are erroneous and subject to civil liability under the FDCPA.  If you are actually paying Ocwen money for these errors, based on these statements, later discovering you overpaid or your payments were misapplied to someone else’s account to make up for Ocwen’s accounting shortfalls, this could warrant a case for disgorgement.

I find it incredibly interesting that Ocwen Loan Servicing’s “Sweet 16” (who I call the Florida notaries who sat around a table in West Palm Beach, Florida and took turns “dummying up” documents that would be recorded in real property records all over the United States, further creating issues of clouds on titles to millions of pieces of real property all over America.

Turning to a recent post on this blog, I note that Ocwen’s “Contract Managers” and “Contract Coordinators” have that same ability to “dummy up” affidavits that claim Ocwen has the authority to do “this, that and the other”; however, without a Limited Power of Attorney to back up the significant claims that Ocwen employees make on these affidavits, one would be virtually in the dark on what actual authority Ocwen has to do anything.

RESEARCH NOTES:

(1) You can locate all of Ocwen’s Limited Powers of Attorney (“LPOA”)by going to the Palm Beach County, Florida Clerk of Court’s website and searching for “Power of Attorney (POA)” with Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC as the GRANTEE.

(2) You need to reach every single detail of these powers of attorney when you locate the appropriate one, as there are over 800 of them recorded in the Clerk’s database.  Use the GRANTOR name to isolate your search (e.g., Bank of New York Mellon, U.S. Bank, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., etc.) and hone in on the LPOA that fits your date and time scenario, which specifically states WHICH REMIC is being represented in the LPOA.  You may be surprised to find that Ocwen is limited as to what it can do (e.g., only manufacturing documents and not actually commencing a foreclosure proceeding).  You may also find the LPOA has expired.  It doesn’t mean they’re not still in the public record … it’s just that they’re expired.

(3) You need to specifically research the REMIC on the SECINFO.com website.

Get a complete copy of the 424(b)(5) Prospectus and SEC Form 15d and save them to file.  In the search bar for the particular REMIC, run the name OCWEN in the search engine and see if anything pops up.  Run the term “Sale and Servicing Agreement” and see what pops up.  If you don’t find specific notations to any event relating to Ocwen, it means two things:

(a.) you will need to locate an LPOA that contains such an Agreement; and

(b.) if you can’t find the Agreement listed in the public record, you’ll have to obtain it in discovery under Request for Production of Documents.

This my friends, is legal research and case strategy, NOT legal advice.  If you’re going to jump down rabbit holes, you’d better be prepared to dig deep!

If Ocwen is NOT allowed to enforce the terms of a Mortgage or Deed of Trust because you can show lack of authority vested to it … and you see the customary FDCPA language on the form they send you … then that would indicate, in asking for a sum certain, that they are in the business of collecting debts and thus are subject to the FDCPA. (This of course, has to be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction! I am not the KING of any Court, unlike some on the Internet that would posit such!)

When it comes to suing mortgage loan servicers like Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, be aware that they have multiple sources to dip into when it comes to fighting their legal battles, even if it means dipping into other peoples’ escrow accounts for that money!  This is why Ocwen wants your house!  They will purposefully rack up so many servicing fees that by the time the house sells and they recoup their expenses, the entire proceeds of the sale is gone and the alleged “lender” Ocwen is supposedly representing, gets nothing.

But wait!   The alleged “lender” got money from credit default swaps, default insurance and title insurance. In fact, we guesstimate about 6 different sources of loss reimbursement, not to mention the FDIC if that corporate federal agency is in play.  Then, there’s the taxpayer.  We won’t go there, for now.

So let’s say we sue Ocwen, for the sake of argument.

UPDATE: The second of four FDCPA webinars on the subject has been re-scheduled for Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 8:00 p.m. EDT.  We will be doing something different in this Webinar, as R. J. Malloy will be walking through the process with me, step by step as we discuss pleadings development and purpose.  This is truly a webinar you DON’T want to miss!  For those of you who are confused about the price … EACH WEBINAR is $39.95!  I cannot do all 4 for that price because of costs.  If I did a live event in Orlando, you’d have to pay anywhere from $495 to $895 to attend a 1-day event, plus airfare and hotel, instead of paying a total of $159.80 for all 4 online workshops and this is a huge savings to you for the same education.

In the second of four FDCPA webinars, we have some new news to update you on about applications of the U. S. Supreme Court’s Spokeo, Inc. v Robins et al_ decision … you have to prove you suffered economic harm in order to make an FDCPA action stick.  I know, it’s the nation’s highest court’s way of impeding class-action lawsuits!  In a class action lawsuit, ALL of the Plaintiffs in the class have to have suffered a similar economic harm before the court will approve the class!

Look for signup information on the CloudedTitles.com.

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED, webinar