Tag Archives: REMIC

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!

Advertisements

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

STRIKE TWO AGAINST OCWEN’S “QUALIFIED WITNESS”; SAY ALOHA OCWEN!

BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED … 

(Honolulu, HI) — For those of you looking for ammunition against Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (REMICs) and the servicers and subservicers who screw homeowners on their behalf, a new case out of Hawaii has surfaced that should put more securitization and civil procedure into greater detail, courtesy of foreclosure defense attorney Gary Victor Dubin.  You can download the .pdf of the Hawaii Supreme Court ruling here:

US Bank NA v Mattos, Sup Ct HI No SCWC-14-0001134 (Jun 6, 2017)

For those of you battling against U.S. Bank, NA as a Trustee of a REMIC, you should know that U.S. Bank has admitted in a 4-page brochure that they do NOT know when a Borrower is in default:

US Bank Brochure – Role of the Corporate Trustee

Further, U. S. Bank (in the same brochure) admits that the Borrower is in fact a part of the securitization chain!

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, long before the Glass-Stegall Act was repealed in 1999, issued a Comptroller’s Handbook on Asset Securitization that also stated the Borrower was a party to the securitization chain (see Page 8 of 92), contemplating in advance of how the chain actually was supposed to work:

OCC Asset Securitization Handbook

Ocwen, as you may recall, admitted to the United States Government (via 6 different federal agencies) in writing that when Borrowers don’t make their payments (to the REMIC), Ocwen, as servicer through the Sales and Servicing Agreement, makes their payment for them, in an article I just posted, see page 2 (bottom) and 3 (top) of  EXHIBIT 29

The Hawaii Supreme Court reversed an appellate court ruling, which upheld the district court’s ruling that U.S. Bank, as Trustee of a REMIC, had the right to foreclose on a property belonging to a Hawaii property owner, which other courts across the land have dared to lightly tread upon these same similar issues. Sadly, borrowers seldom ever follow through on getting to the nation’s highest courts (the state Supreme Courts) to achieve finality.

I beg of you to read Gary Dubin’s case, because part of the equation in securitization failure has been examined and ruled upon by a state Supreme Court (Hawaii).  I am singularly surprised that other state’s haven’t made the same glaring rulings finitely (Florida’s 4th DCA is close, but NOT THIS CIGAR!).

This case is a rarity that should be examined in more detail because the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”) was included in the attack.  What’s worse, Ocwen’s “Contract” witness, who tendered an affidavit claiming he was a “know-it-all” about Ocwen’s business records (which 20 states and the District of Columbia are calling a sham), which did nothing for U.S. Bank because U.S. Bank’s attorneys couldn’t prove the relationship between Ocwen and U.S. Bank.

I was truly shocked about the part of robo-signing, which in fact was mentioned in the ruling.  No one has yet to challenge this act as part of a civil conspiracy (yet); however, this is to come.  I am not going to go into detail for you here, because I know many of you out there like to do your own research into the elements of civil conspiracy in your respective states, as in a Google search, “What constitutes the elements of civil conspiracy in _____ (insert your state here)____?” and see what pops up.  The burden of proof is much lower than RICO and easier to prove by attacking the signers, witnesses and notary involved in the assignment.

Oh, darn! This involves spending money doing depositions, huh? Shit!  And here you thought you were going to get a “free house”!  I don’t know where the bank’s attorneys get off making these snide remarks about homeowners wanting a free house, because they don’t even know what the homeowners are thinking.

The Trustee hasn’t paid a nickel to the investors that it can document; however, EXHIBIT 29 clearly identifies WHO pays the investors.  So, taking this to its logical conclusion: If the investors are getting paid, then how can the Trustee, on behalf of the investors, claim the investors have been harmed or prejudiced because the securitization chain failed?  I have no contract with the servicer, do I?  My contract is the Mortgage and Note. Those contracts are with the Lender.  When the Lender goes belly up, as history has shown us, the mortgage servicers use the MERS® System to “keep the lie going” by giving unproven authority to thousands of writer’s cramped individuals who execute assignments in its name, being told by third-party document mill executives that it’s perfectly legal to do what they’re doing.

This is why the entire banking underbelly is corrupt and illegal as hell.

The securitization chain failed because the parties to the trust DID NOT follow the REMIC’s own governing regulations, not because the investors weren’t getting their payments!  When push came to shove, Ocwen and other third-party butt plugs had to gum up the chain of title with what I consider falsified documents, Assignments of Mortgages and Assignments of Deeds of Trust.  That is my new term for document mill robo-signers who have no knowledge of the facts contained in an assignment they’re claiming they have knowledge of! To even proffer this … and then brag about it like NTC does (the McDonald’s of robo-signing, “over 16-million served”, referring to the number of documents this third-party document mill says it’s recorded as a means to “clear title”) … should have put this entity, its directors and employees, in prison.  However, since the banks have virtually paid off the state legislators and executive enforcement arms … no one has gone to prison, yet.

A Court Case Full of Surprises! 

I am glowing about the securitization/forensic analysis included as a mention in this Hawaii case as a means to educate a judge … and nothing more.  Most judges can’t wrap their heads around this kind of testimony because they are only thinking about their retirement accounts and how those accounts might be affected if they rule against the bank.  Unfortunately, what they DON’T GET … it that the entire 424(b)(5) prospectus is in play here, NOT just the PSA portion of it!  Let’s take a look, shall we?

SEC Info – Mortgage Asset Securitization Transactions Inc – ‘424B5_ on 1:14:05 re: Mastr Alternative

There are 357 pages in the Prospectus attached above.  Yes, the WHOLE enchilada!  Why just pick out the PSA?  That’s like eating the peas and leaving the steak! It doesn’t contain ALL of the information now, does it?  This is the Prospectus for the foregoing Hawaii case! 

Look at the portion of the Prospectus that talks about the PSA.  If you look under the TABLE OF CONTENTS, the Pooling and Servicing Agreement is found beginning at Page S-95.  However, the cut-off and closing dates that are related to the issues expressed within the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are found OUTSIDE OF the section on the PSA, at Page S-5, 90 pages away from the PSA!  The Prospectus of this REMIC (and any REMIC for that matter) is the entire “sales pitch” of the REMIC!  It’s the entire set of governing relations for the REMIC!  Why then are we just focusing on the PSA when the entire 424(b)(5) Prospectus has all the rest of the nuggets that make the PSA make sense?   Because judges are lazy and don’t want to read 357 pages of this stuff.  If judges figured this out, there wouldn’t be one retirement plan vested in RMBS’s and CMBS’s!

This is the end result of what the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act has caused.  This is the lazy man’s excuse for not wanting to read (texting is more funner, sic).  This is why Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s reintroduction of the Act cannot go unsupported.  The people need relief here.

Text – S.881 – 115th Congress (2017-2018): 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act of 2017 | Congress.gov |

I have talked about securitization failure systematically on this blog prior to the mass deletion of what came before this set of recently-posted articles.  It would make no sense to educate a judge that thinks his retirement account will fail if he rules against a bank.  This is why I have always told consumers involved in foreclosure litigation to “background their judge” (hire a private investigator if you have to, to dig up the judge’s nasty little political secrets)!

What has happened since the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed has turned into an all-out war involving servicer fraud and this case is a clear example of it.  I seriously doubt that U.S. Bank was really involved in this case (more like Ocwen).  If the attorneys for the bank were actually forced to admit WHICH aggrieved party they were representing in this case, they probably couldn’t tell you.  My guess is, Ocwen retained them because Ocwen wants to steal your house to reimburse itself for all those pesky servicing fees it racked up paying the REMICs off!  This is how Ocwen wants to get rich off America … and it uses Altisource and REALServicing (more-than-arm’s-length devices) to pull it off!  Any time that you see “corporate layering”, you are going to have to dig deep like many of the readers of this blog do … and pull up the serious stuff that matters.

We have to be smarter than the banks if we want to win.  Unlike the banks, we have to expose the truth!

This is my truth: OSCEOLA COUNTY FORENSIC EXAMINATION

 

3 Comments

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

YOU ARE KNOWN BY THE COMPANY YOU KEEP!

BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED

In a not-so-unexpected move, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC has filed a lawsuit against Fidelity Information Services (FIS), which is basically an IT servicer provider to mortgage loan servicers.  The issues involve Ocwen being billed $44.8-million by FIS, which the IT provider says were legit expenses.  Ocwen disagrees, citing part of the receipts FIS claims were “legit” involve expenses at strip clubs, lavish hotels and casinos.  Sounds like robbing Peter to pay Paul just backfired on Ocwen and the California Department of Business Oversight and now Ocwen wants its pound of flesh.

And just when everyone thought that Ocwen was a “snake in the grass” when it came to servicing mortgage loans, given the latest spate of bad news confronting it vis a vis three lawsuits from: (1) the CFPB; (2) the Florida Attorney General; and (3) Ocwen shareholders, it appears that Ocwen is trying to shift part of the blame arising from an audit of its services involving California homeowners (“the property owners that Ocwen has allegedly screwed”) under an order from the California Department of Business Oversight (“DBO”, “the government”) to audit Ocwen’s records to insure compliance with the DBO’s Order.   See the 27-page Complaint here:

FIS-Complaint-Final

To compound Ocwen’s problems, 20 states plus the District of Columbia have also informed Ocwen that they will not allow the servicer to take on any new servicing accounts.   Judging from the complaints lodged against Ocwen and its parent, the fault lies in Ocwen’s servicing platform (REALServicing), which would further indicate that Ocwen mortgages need to be individually, fully audited if Ocwen decides it wants to file a complaint to foreclose in Court, as the mortgage servicer, in collecting any alleged debt, could rack up multiple FDCPA violations!

On another note … for those of you who have Ocwen as a servicer … if Ocwen is trying to foreclose on you and you know you haven’t been making your mortgage payments … would it surprise you to learn that as a servicer or sub-servicer, Ocwen has been so kind (without any direct contract from you) as to make your payments for you?

Are you shitting your pants yet?

Perhaps you’d like to read this “electronic transmission” that Ocwen sent to six federal agencies, especially at the bottom of page 2 and the first paragraphs of page 3 (part of a report issued to counsel at Exhibit 29):

EXHIBIT 29

Now you seriously don’t think I made this shit up, right?   This is Ron Faris, Ocwen’s CEO writing this stuff!

If Ocwen is making your payments, how then, are you in default?

May I suggest you check into your REMIC’s “Sales and Servicing Agreement” (“SSA”, also discussed in Exhibit 29) to see what conditions Ocwen would make these payments … basically … according to the Exhibit 29, they get to recoup all of those pesky servicing fees they’re tacking on at every whim, to where there’s nothing left for the REMIC after they sell your house!  Another slap at homeowners … part of servicer fraud!

It’s public … so don’t say you weren’t told.

So if Ocwen’s accounting system is that messed up … and it’s taking funds from “other accounts” to pay for delinquent loan payments … wouldn’t it stand to reason that cutting off its new servicing routes would starve the mortgage loan servicer for surplus servicing funds it could continue to use to rip off other homeowners besides those affected.  The dog chasing its tail?   Perhaps.  Eventually, it either gives up or bites itself.  Ouch!

Sadly, our government let’s these folks get away with this, because Exhibit 29 was sent to the government, it has knowledge of what Ocwen is doing.  It’s no wonder Ocwen’s stock tanked.  If I ran a business like Ron Faris does, my stock would tank too! It’s no wonder many of you out there are considering suing Ocwen.  Pretty soon, its legal resources will be depleted and it won’t be able to survive. Hmmm. Gee, what an interesting thought.

Hmmm.  Looks like homeowners are making an impact here.

In our next online FDCPA Webinar, we’re going to look at drafting a sample FDCPA suit against Ocwen!  Doesn’t THAT sound like fun?  Go to the Clouded Titles website to register to attend this online webinar, Thursday, June 15, 2017!

 

1 Comment

Filed under BREAKING NEWS, OP-ED