ARE YOU A VICTIM OF WELLS FARGO'S PAIN?: February 2011

Monday, February 28, 2011

NEIL GARFIELD FINDS THE BEST HELP FOR HOMEOWNERS

ALLSTATE FILES SUIT LAYING OUT ALL THE ALLEGATIONS YOU NEED

Posted on February 24, 2011 by Neil Garfield

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary

http://livinglies.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/2-24-2011-chase-allstate-complaint.pdf

REQUIRED READING

2.24.2011 Chase -Allstate-Complaint

JUST LOOKING AT THE TABLE OF CONTENT WILL TELL YOU WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

NATURE OF ACTION …………………………………………………………………………………………………….1
PARTIES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..7
JURISDICTION AND VENUE ……………………………………………………………………………………….16
BACKGROUND ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………17
A.    THE MECHANICS OF MORTGAGE SECURITIZATION …………………………………….17
B.    SECURITIZATION OF MORTGAGE LOANS: THE TRADITIONAL MODEL ……..19
C.    THE SYSTEMIC VIOLATION OF UNDERWRITING AND APPRAISAL STANDARDS IN THE MORTGAGE SECURITIZATION INDUSTRY …………………..21
D.    DEFENDANTS WERE AN INTEGRATED VERTICAL OPERATION CONTROLLING EVERY ASPECT OF THE SECURITIZATION PROCESS…………..24
(1)    JPMorgan Defendants……………………………………………………………………..24 (2)

WaMu Defendants ………………………………………………………………………….26 (3)

Bear Stearns Defendants ………………………………………………………………….27
E. DEFENDANTS’ OFFERING MATERIALS…………………………………………………………..29 (1)

The JPMorgan Offerings………………………………………………………………….29 (2)

The WaMu Offerings………………………………………………………………………30 (3)

The Long-Beach Offering………………………………………………………………..32 (4)

The Bear Stearns Offerings………………………………………………………………32
SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS …………………………………………………………………………………..34
I.    THE OFFERING MATERIALS CONTAINED UNTRUE STATEMENTS OF MATERIAL FACT AND OMISSIONS ABOUT THE MORTGAGE ORIGINATORS’ UNDERWRITING STANDARDS AND PRACTICES, AND MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MORTGAGE LOAN POOLS ……………..34
A.    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Underwriting Standards And Practices …………………………………………………………………………………………………..34
(1)    JPMorgan Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Underwriting Standards And Practices………………………………………………35
i
(2)    WaMu Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Underwriting Standards and Practices……………………………………………………………………35
(3)    Long Beach Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Underwriting Standards and Practices……………………………………………….36
(4)    Bear Stearns Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Underwriting Standards and Practices……………………………………………….39
B.    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Owner-Occupancy Statistics …………40
(1)    JPMorgan Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Owner- Occupancy Statistics ……………………………………………………………………….40
(2)    WaMu Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Owner Occupancy Statistics ……………………………………………………………………….41
(3)    Bear Stearns Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Owner Occupancy Statistics ……………………………………………………………………….41
C.    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Loan-to-Value and Combined Loan-to-Value Ratios…………………………………………………………………………………42
(1)    JPMorgan Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding LTV and CLTV Ratios………………………………………………………………………………….42
(2)    WaMu Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding LTV and CLTV Ratios ……………………………………………………………………………………………42
(3)    Bear Stearns Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding LTV and CLTV Ratios………………………………………………………………………………….43
D.    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Debt-to-Income Ratios …………………44
(1)    JPMorgan Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Debt-to- Income Ratios …………………………….................…………………………………………………..44
(2)    WaMu Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Debt-to-Income Ratios ……………………………………………………………………………………………44
(3)    Bear Stearns Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Debt-to- Income Ratios ............................................................................................................................................45
E.    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Ratings……………………………..46
(1)    JPMorgan Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Ratings ………………………………………………………………………………………….46
(2)    WaMu Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Ratings………..47 ii
(3)    Long Beach Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Ratings ………………………………………………………………………………………….48
(4)    Bear Stearns Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Ratings ………………………………………………………………………………………….48
F.    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Enhancements……………………49
(1)    JPMorgan Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Enhancements ………………………………………………………………………………..49
(2)    WaMu Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Enhancements ………………………………………………………………………………..50
(3)    Long Beach Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Enhancements ………………………………………………………………………………..50
(4)    Bear Stearns Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Credit Enhancements ………………………………………………………………………………..51
G.    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Underwriting Exceptions………………51
(1)    JPMorgan Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Underwriting Exceptions …………………………………………………………………51
(2)    WaMu Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Underwriting Exceptions ……………………………………………………………………………………..52
(3)    Long Beach Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Underwriting Exceptions …………………………………………………………………53
(4)    Bear Stearns Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Underwriting Exceptions …………………………………………………………………53
H.    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Alternative Documentation Loans ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….53
(1)    JPMorgan Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Alternative Documentation Loans ……………………………………………………………………..54
(2)    WaMu Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Alternative Documentation Loans ……………………………………………………………………..54
(3)    Bear Stearns Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Alternative Documentation Loans …………………………………………………….55
I.    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Full-Documentation Loans……………55
iii
J.    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Regarding Adverse Selection of Mortgage Loans ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….56
K.    Defendants’ Failure to Disclose the Negative Results of Due Diligence …………..57
II.    ALL OF DEFENDANTS’ REPRESENTATIONS WERE UNTRUE AND MISLEADING BECAUSE DEFENDANTS SYSTEMATICALLY IGNORED THEIR OWN UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES ……………………………………………………58
A.    Evidence Demonstrates Defendants’ Underwriting Abandonment: High Default Rates And Plummeting Credit Ratings ……………………………………………..59
B.    Statistical Evidence of Faulty Underwriting: Borrowers Did Not Actually Occupy The Mortgaged Properties As Represented……………………………………….62
(1)    The JPMorgan Offerings………………………………………………………………….64 (2)

The WaMu Offerings………………………………………………………………………64 (3)

The Bear Stearns Offerings………………………………………………………………65
C. Statistical Evidence of Faulty Underwriting: The Loan-to-Value Ratios In The Offering Materials Were Inaccurate ………………………………………………………65
(1) The JPMorgan Offerings………………………………………………………………….66 (2) T

he WaMu Offerings………………………………………………………………………68 (3)

The Bear Stearns Offerings………………………………………………………………71
D.    Other Statistical Evidence Demonstrates That The Problems In Defendants’ Loans Were Tied To Underwriting Guideline Abandonment………..72
E.    Evidence Demonstrates That Credit Ratings Were A Garbage-In, Garbage-Out Process …………………………………………………………………………………75
F.    Evidence From Defendants’ Own Documents And Former Employees Demonstrates That The Representations In Defendants’ Offering Materials Were False ……………………………………………………………………………………………….76
(1)    The JPMorgan Offerings………………………………………………………………….76 (2)

The WaMu Offerings………………………………………………………………………80 (3)

The Long Beach Offerings……………………………………………………………….87 (4)

The Bear Stearns Offerings………………………………………………………………92
iv
G.    Evidence From Defendants’ Third-Party Due Diligence Firm Demonstrates That Defendants Were Originating Defective Loans………………….94
H.    Evidence Of Other Investigations Demonstrates The Falsity Of Defendants’ Representations ………………………………………………………………………97
(1)    The WaMu and Long Beach Offerings………………………………………………97
(2)    The Bear Stearns Offerings………………………………………………………………99
III.    DEFENDANTS’ REPRESENTATIONS CONCERNING UNAFFILIATED ORIGINATORS’ UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES WERE ALSO FALSE ……………102
A.    Countrywide ……………………………………………………………………………………………104
(1)    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Concerning Countrywide’s Underwriting Practices…………………………………………………………………..104
(2)    These Representations Were Untrue And Misleading………………………..105 B.

GreenPoint ……………………………………………………………………………………………..109
(1)    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Concerning GreenPoint’s Underwriting Practices…………………………………………………………………..109
(2)    These Representations Were Untrue And Misleading………………………..111 C.    PHH……………………………………………………………………………………………………….115
(1)    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Concerning PHH’s Underwriting Practices ………………………………………………………………………………………115
(2)    These Representations Were Untrue And Misleading………………………..116 D.

Option One……………………………………………………………………………………………..118
(1)    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Concerning Option One’s Underwriting Practices…………………………………………………………………..118
(2)    These Representations Were Untrue and Misleading:………………………..120 E.    Fremont ………………………………………………………………………………………………….122
(1)    Defendants’ Misrepresentations Concerning Fremont’s Underwriting Practices…………………………………………………………………..122
(2)    These Representations Were Untrue and Misleading…………………………124 IV.

THE DEFENDANTS KNEW THEIR REPRESENTATIONS WERE FALSE ………….126
v
A.    The Statistical Evidence Is Itself Persuasive Evidence Defendants Knew Or Recklessly Disregarded The Falsity Of Their Representations………………….126
B.    Evidence From Third Party Due Diligence Firms Demonstrates That Defendants Knew Defective Loans Were Being Securitized …………………………127
C.    Evidence Of Defendants’ Influence Over The Appraisal Process Demonstrates That Defendants Knew The Appraisals Were Falsely Inflated …………………………………………………………………………………………………..130
D.    Evidence Of Internal Documents And Former Employee Testimony Demonstrates That Defendants Knew Their Representations Were False ……….131
(1) (2) (3) (4)
JPMorgan Defendants Knew Their Representations Were False…………131 WaMu Defendants Knew Their Representations Were False ……………..133 Long Beach Defendants Knew Their Representations Were False………138 Bear Stearns Defendants Knew Their Representations Were False ……..140
V.    ALLSTATE’S DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE AND DAMAGES ……………………………144

VI. TOLLING OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 CLAIMS …………………………………..146

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION …………………………………………………………………………………………149

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION …………………………………………………………………………………….150

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION………………………………………………………………………………………..152

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION …………………………………………………………………………………….155

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION …………………………………………………………………………………………157

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ………………………………………………………………………………………………..157

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED……………………………………………

http://livinglies.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/2-24-2011-chase-allstate-complaint.pdf

WRONGFULLY FORECLOSE UPON? FILE A MOTION TO VACATE!

Motion to Vacate Judgment (Alissa Brinkley)

Thursday, February 24, 2011

LOCAL HUD REP CLARK HAGGARD OF SOUTHWEST HOUSING SOLUTIONS WHY AREN'T YOU DOING YOUR JOB? START HELPING HOMEOWNERS OR GET THE HECK OUT OF THERE!

Hey Kelly,

I found your website this morning. Great Information.

We were in different loan modification programs with Wells Fargo for 18 months. They put us in one program after another and even told us last summer we made too much income for a modification. We made our recommended monthly payment for 24 months. We got a letter in October saying we were in a program. Then in October when we called in to make a payment they wouldn't accept it and said we were in Foreclosure. The loan modification representative says we are still in the program! The costs associated with the foreclosure are accelerating the principal balance way beyond what we could of payed had WF even talked to us before handing it over to an attorney.

We just got the notice for a Rule 120 hearing and may get a chance there to postpone the foreclosure. The local hud Representative Clark Haggard of Southwest Housing solutions has done nothing. He won't even return a phone call. Unfortunately we waited on him for help he offered. Can I forward a letter to Wells Fargo exec's listed on your website and possibly get someone to talk to us. We have offered money for back charges etc. and they won't talk to us. It's unbelievable WF would foreclose on someone who is making payments to them. You know what we have equity and they want our house!

Thank You ,

J.

My Dear Friend J.

You can write Cara Heiden, CEO of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, her e-mail address is cara.heiden@wellsfargo.com.

Now, here me, and here me well: thousands of letters are telling me the same exact story you have just told me. And many times, many, many times, Wells Fargo will make offers to stop (if the homeowners is willing to pay more money) and after they receive thousands of dollars from homeowners, Wells Fargo will go ahead and foreclose EVEN WITH MODIFICATION AND FORBEARANCECONTRACTS IN PLACE.

The very best thing you can do, and the only thing that stops Wells Fargo from foreclosing, is filing a personal cause of action against them. Please, even if you write Cara Heiden, and I encourage you to do so, file a personal cause of action against Wells Fargo for Breach of Contract, and for a million other things they are most likely guilty of in your jurisdiction, with which your attorney can help you.

Do Not Wait. Absolutely Do Not Wait. Every second counts... THEY DON'T NEED A REASON, THEY ARE JUST DOING IT.

Kelly L. Hansen

HOMEOWNERS HELPING HOMEOWNERS FOUNDATION, INC.

DEONTOS.IS FINDS ANOTHER U.S. SUPREME COURT PREEMPTION CASE, THANK YOU DEONTES.IS!

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Supreme Court Rejects Preemption Defense, 8-0, in Product Defects Case

Good news today from the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a decision issued this morning inWilliamson v. Mazda, the Court unanimously held that state-law damages claims seeking to hold an automaker accountable for its vehicle-design choices were not barred by federal regulation of motor vehicles. Justice Breyer wrote the opinion for the Court, which was joined by the Chief and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, and Sotomayor; Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion and Justice Thomas concurred only in the judgment. (Justice Kagan was recused.)

Justice Thomas's short concurrence is a particularly interesting read for those interested in the development of preemption doctrine. Building on his pathbreaking opinions in Wyeth v. Levineand other recent preemption cases, Justice Thomas takes the position that the plain text of the savings clause in the relevant statute (the Safety Act) should have governed the case, thus obviating the need to engage in any consideration of so-called purposes-and-objectives preemption. Justice Thomas's distinctive, textualist jurisprudence in this area may tip the balance in other preemption cases pending this term, including perhaps AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.

Thanh Williamson was killed while riding in the second-row aisle seat of a Mazda minivan when it was struck head on by another vehicle. Her seat was equipped with a lap-only seatbelt, which caused fatal internal injuries when the impact of the collision caused her body to jackknife over the belt. After her death, Mrs. Williamson’s family brought suit against Mazda, alleging that the van was defective because it lacked a lap/shoulder belt for the aisle seat. When the minivan was manufactured and sold, the relevant federal safety standard allowed but did not require that seat to have a lap/shoulder belt.

The question before the Court was whether the Williamsons’ damages claims were barred by implied conflict preemption, on the theory that holding Mazda accountable for failing to install a lap/shoulder belt would pose an obstacle to the federal safety standard in effect at the time. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the claims were not preempted. The case will now return to the trial court, where the Williamsons will have an opportunity to litigate their case on the merits.

One of my colleagues here at Public Citizen Litigation Group, Allison Zieve, helped to secure this important victory in the fight against broad theories of preemption, which are used to deny consumers access to the civil justice system. The Williamsons’ lead counsel in the Supreme Court was Martin Buchanan of San Diego. As co-counsel in the Supreme Court, Allison worked closely with Martin on briefing and argument preparation. Congratulations to Martin on such a resounding victory in his first appearance before the U.S. Supreme Court!

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

MARY COCHRANE AT SAVE AMERICA PETITIONS PRESIDENT OBAMA TO ENFORCE THE LAW AGAINST MASTER SERVICERS, TO PROTECT THE WELFARE OF THIS GREAT NATION

Barack Obama, President of the United States o...

Image via WikipediaFebruary 22, 2011

Kelly,

Thank you for protecting consumers.

President Barack Obama ignores his duty as President of the United States to protect the economy, since September 2008 recognized to be the third element of our national security. 'MASTER SERVICERS' are the actual 'BUYER' (aka as Originator) and SELLER (aka as Depositor) who exchanged currency in exchange for one mortgage at a time's promissory note. The DEED OF TRUST is superior to the Agreements MEMBERS of the private financial exchange created 'Loan Trusts.' MASTER SERVICERS ignored the law which does serve a greater purpose to protect the welfare of the nation. [Mary, please explain this part to me.]

Property taken by deception unlawfully one mortgage at a time is theft, Fraud, Negligence of the MASTER SERVICERS (OFFICERS of Financial Holding Companies) who ordered employees to now follow the law and in gang-like behavior led others for reward to break the law. Intent to hide the unlawful acts occur[ed] and [these attempts to fix the broken chain of title were] found during bankruptcy and foreclosure and revealed by the Legal Services lawyers.

Under the 1st Amendment we can Petition our authority to seek Commander In Chief, President Barack Obama, to enforce the law, his primary job under Article II.

I petition redress of grievances humbly seeking my Authority to allow the President of the UNITED STATES v. MASTER SERVICERS who sold and bought promissory notes for the 'LOAN TRUST', including their CEO AND CFO of Bank who allowed funds to be used in fraud and theft, for the Commander-in-Chief is to protect the welfare of this great nation and we prayerfully seek injuctive relief and remedy thru enforcement of laws broken. Laws are created by Congress to protect the welfare of the nation. We are unsafe in life and property, denied due process and subject to unlawful seizures of property due to substantive omissions of material facts without accurate business statements MASTER SERVICERS, in writing, instructed employees 'SERVICERS' and MEMBERS TO NOT FOLLOW THE LAWS. ONE MORTGAGE AT A TIME, MONEY WAS EXTRACTED OUT OF THE NATION. ONE MORTGAGE AT A TIME COURTS can provide remedy and order Banks to create 'Mortgage Satisfied' documents and restore the property stolen back to the lawful owner.

Please punish those who broke the law, members of the private financial exchange, MASTER SERVICERS and the CEO & CFO of the banks. THE PRESIDENT IS TO PROTECT THE WELFARE OF THE NATION AND HE HAS NOT ENFORCED THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and we are in danger, unsafe while the ENEMY continues to harm us. Don't let the origination documents be destroyed and permanently lost which will destroy the Federal Republic. We prayerfully seek injunctive relief and remedies as allowed under federal laws and state laws.

Your Humble Constituent,

By Mary_Cochrane@saveamericaone.com

Monday, February 21, 2011

SORRY BOFA, YOU ARE BREAKING STATE LAW, THE SUPREME COURT ALREADY RULED ON THIS IN CUOMO V CLEARINGHOUSE IN JUNE, 2009

Daniel P. Stipano states National Banks Are Subject to State Laws When Foreclosing Mortgage Loans They Did Not Originate: click this link to read OCC Interpretive Letter #1016 February 2005

BofA Unit’s Utah Foreclosures Violate Law, State Says

By David McLaughlin - Feb 17, 2011 3:37 PM GMT-0600

A Bank of America Corp. unit is breaking the law by foreclosing on homeowners in Utah because it doesn’t meet state requirements, the state attorney general’s office said in a federal appeals court case.

ReconTrust Co., a subsidiary of Bank of America, the biggest U.S. lender by assets, isn’t a member of the state bar or a title insurance company and is unqualified to carry out trustee foreclosures, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff wrote in court papers filed yesterday with the U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver.

“ReconTrust Co. N.A. is a non-depository national bank initiating approximately 4,000 home foreclosures in Utah each year in violation of Utah law,” the attorney general’s office said.

The court filing was made in a homeowner’s lawsuit against ReconTrust and Bank of America.

“National banks must abide by state law,” said John Christian Barlow, an attorney for the homeowner, Peni Cox. “ReconTrust just wants to foreclose, period,” he said.

[Barlow's familiar with CUOMO V CLEARINGHOUSE BY US SUPREME COURT, JUNE, 2009.]

Cuomo v. Clearing House - Preemption Case

A Utah state judge issued an injunction last year blocking ReconTrust from trustee foreclosure sales in the state, Barlow said. A federal judge later lifted the injunction.

‘Applicable Laws’

“It is Bank of America and its related affiliates’ policy to handle foreclosures in compliance with applicable laws,” Jumana Bauwens, a spokeswoman for Bank of America, said in an e- mailed statement. “We believe the district court was correct in its ruling in our favor and believe the ruling should not change as a result of this appeal.”

Recontrust also was stopped from conducting nonjudicial foreclosures, or those that don’t require court supervision, in Nevada by a state judge. A Nevada federal judge later dissolved the state court order, allowing foreclosures to proceed.

Bank of America, based in Charlotte, North Carolina, argued in court papers that it has the authority to conduct foreclosures in Utah under the federal National Bank Act. Under that law, only statutes of the state where the bank is located can be applied to fiduciary activities, Bank of America said.

[Bank of America is missing a very important point: in any State where a National Bank (or any entity) is acting as a mortgage servicer (collecting mortgage payments d on real property located in that State) or using a state court to litigate a foreclosure cause of action against a Defendant who lives in that State, they must be registered in that State with the Secretary of State as doing business in that State, and they must be licensed with the State's Banking Commissioner. Otherwise, the entity (or National Bank) is breaking the law.]

No other state laws limiting or establishing preconditions are applicable to national banks, it said. ReconTrust is based in California and its trust operations for Utah foreclosures take place in Texas, according to the court filing.

The case is Cox v. ReconTrust Co., 10-04117, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit (Denver).

To contact the reporter on this story: David McLaughlin in New York at dmclaughlin9@bloomberg.net.

Sunday, February 20, 2011

YES, YOU CAN WIN A CASE AGAINST WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.!!!!

Gerald Lostutter, Esq.
I am a Florida-licensed attorney who represented a Defendant against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and won!

gl_who@yahoo.com (personal)
gl_atty@yahoo.com (law office)
Order Granting Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment

Thursday, February 17, 2011

DONTE, UNDERSTANDS NATIONAL BANKS FALL UNDER STATE LAWS WHEN FORECLOSING IN STATE COURTS

DONTE, AN AWESOME CONTRIBUTER ON SCRIBD, CREATED THIS FANTASTIC DOCUMENT FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO UNDERSTAND WHY NATIONAL BANKS MUST FOLLOW STATE LAW WHEN FORECLOSING IN STATE COURTS, AND WHY, IF THEY DO NOT, YOU HAVE GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE (ALWAYS CONFIRM EVERYTHING I SAY WITH YOUR ATTORNEY FIRST!!!) OCC Interpretive Letter No 1016 Preemption DENIED

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

THE WHEELS OF JUSTICE TURN OH, SO, SLOWLY...AS WE CONTINUE TO SNEAK UP ON THE TOTAL TRUTH...

JUST SPIT IT OUT! MILLIONS OF HOMEOWNERS HAVE BEEN WRONGFULLY FORECLOSED AGAINST AND THIS IS GOING TO BE A MESS! QUIT HIDING THE TRUTH. YOU ARE JUST ADDING MORE LAYERS OF FRAUD.

Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:53pm EST

Bank regulators found mortgage servicers broke laws
Probe included BofA, Citi, Wells Fargo

Feb 16 (Reuters) - U.S. bank regulators are finalizing punishments against mortgage servicers after a probe found "critical deficiencies" with the industry's foreclosure processes.

John Walsh, the acting head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, said a national probe of foreclosure paperwork and procedures found that mortgage servicers broke laws, and that a small number of homeowners were wrongly evicted.

"These deficiencies have resulted in violations of state and local foreclosure laws, regulations, or rules and have had an adverse affect on the functioning of the mortgage markets and the U.S. economy as a whole," Walsh said in congressional testimony obtained on Wednesday by Reuters.

Walsh did not identify any servicers, but his testimony noted that the probe included Bank of America (BAC.N), Citibank (C.N), JPMorgan (JPM.N), and Wells Fargo (WFC.N), among others.

He has said in the past that regulators have the power to seek monetary penalties against the servicers and to issue criminal referrals.

The biggest U.S. mortgage servicers have been accused of taking possibly illegal shortcuts in some foreclosure proceedings, such as using "robo-signers" to sign hundreds of unread documents a day and advancing foreclosures without proof they held the mortgages.

The allegations have been a reputational and financial hit for the companies. They are facing repurchase demands from investors in mortgage-backed securities and multiple probes from bank regulators and all 50 state attorneys general.

Walsh said in testimony prepared to be delivered on Thursday before the Senate that mortgage servicers emphasized speed and cost efficiency over quality and accuracy in their foreclosures.

He noted that the bad behavior varied across the industry. He also said that despite servicers' deficiencies, U.S. examiners found that the foreclosures involved seriously delinquent loans and that servicers generally maintained documentation of ownership.

Walsh said only a "small number" of foreclosure sales should not have proceeded. He cited cases of military families and foreclosures in which the loan had been approved for a trial modification. (Reporting by Karey Wutkowski; Editing by Gary Hill)

IF THE ENTITY FORECLOSING AGAINST YOU IS BREAKING YOUR STATE'S LAWS, YOU MAY HAVE GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL

If the entity foreclosing against you is breaking your state's laws, you may have grounds for a dismissal "WITH" prejudice. (Not without!!!) DO NOT FORGET to ask for "with prejudice". It means they can't come back and bother you ever again.

Please discuss this with your attorney: If you have already been foreclosed against, and the foreclosing entity was not registered with your Secretary of State to do business in your state, and if they were not registered to do mortgage servicing with the Banking Commissioner in your state, file a MOTION TO VACATE BASED ON LOSS OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. Subject matter jurisdiction is not subject to a statute of limitations, and can be invoked at any time.

"Daniel P. Stipano states
National Banks Are Subject to State Laws
When Foreclosing Mortgage Loans
They Did Not Originate"

rod said...

this letter is actually known as OCC Interpretive Letter #1016 February 2005.

It took me 6 years to discover it. Same issue decided in Cuomo v Clearinghouse by US Supreme Court, June, 2009.

We all need to stress these points of law, until the courts hear us and listen and obey their own laws

February 7, 2011 11:02 PM

Kelly L. Hansen said...

Rod!

I just have to tell you how good you comment made me feel. Now I know I'm not a complete and total idiot. I knew that letter was of great importance. These damn banks keep saying they don't have to conform to state laws, yet they foreclose against mortgages in States where they aren't licenced or registered on mortgage loans they don't originate, and usually aren't even registered on at the Register of Deeds Office...and then they attempt to invoke the state's statutes in their lawsuits if it helps them to do so!

February 14, 2011 11:30 AM

Sunny said:

Could someone please explain what the OCC Letter means and it's relevance? I am not able to understand the legal jargon. Thank you very kindly in advance for your support.

Sunny

February 15, 2011 11:49 AM
Cat West said...
The OCC is the Office of the Comptroller of Currency

They are the branch of our treasury department that is supposed to be watching these banks to make sure they follow the law. Clearly, they aren't doing enough for the homeowners who have become victims of the crimes we hear about on this blog.

February 16, 2011 8:20 AM
Kelly L. Hansen said...
Sunny,

I'm not a lawyer, this is just my "slant" however when I read this I found
it to be of HUGE importance if you have been foreclosed against in a State Court, by an entity that is not registered in your state to do business, if:

that entity did not originate your mortgage loan.

In the case referenced by Rod, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that National Banks are subject to state laws when they are litigating in state courts.

Daniel P. Stipano's letter goes a step further stating when these entities are foreclosing against loans they did not originate, once again, they are subject to the state's laws in which they are foreclosing.

What is significant about the Supreme Court decision and Daniel P. Stipano's letter is that they both clarify the law regarding National Banks being subject to state laws when foreclosing. (Because your case is subject to dismissal if the entity foreclosing against you has not followed state laws before filing its foreclosure action. Anyone who has been foreclosed against, your foreclosure is subject to a motion to vacate due to loss of subject matter jurisdiction over the case.)

National Banks continue to claim they are "exempt" from state laws: they don't have to be registered in the state to do business; they don't have to be licensed in the state as a mortgage loan servicer, etc. However, if they intend to file foreclosures and use a state court to litigate, they better conform to the state's laws prior to filing or face losing their case. CHECK IF YOUR FORECLOSING ENTITY IS REGISTERED WITH YOUR SECRETARY OF STATE AND IF THEY ARE LICENSED WITH THE BANKING COMMISSIONER AS IS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW.

Daniel P. Stipano's letter also has great relevance when it comes to SECURITIZED LOANS.

More often than not, the entity that is foreclosing against you will not be the entity that originated your mortgage loan. Usually, mortgage loans have been securitized.

Daniel P. Stipano's letter confirms that when a foreclosing entity is foreclosing upon a mortgage loan held in a securitized trust (all securitized loans) they are subject to the state's laws in which they are foreclosing. That is the majority of all mortgage loans. And it is certainly all MERS loans.

So, file a motion to dismiss on the fact that the entity foreclosing against you is not legally registered or licensed to do mortgage business in your state. Or file a motion to vacate a past foreclosure. AFTER YOU TALK TO YOUR LAWYER!!!!!!

LARRY WILSON IS COMMITTED: "I'll try and stay in touch and I will keep fighting until they 'pull this computer from my cold, dead hands'. Please urge everyone to do the same."

THANKS TO ALL READERS WHO HAVE RESPONDED TO LARRY'S FIRST LETTER WITH KINDNESS AND ENCOURAGING COMMENTS. GOD BLESS EACH OF YOUR PRECIOUS HEARTS.

Kelly,

It appears that I have touched at least a few hearts out there via your blog. Thanks for posting my letter. Just to let you know how things stand, I haven't had a notice tacked to my door yet (unlawful detainer) but I know they are out there plotting on how to throw me out. I have reserved a storage locker so I can start moving items this weekend when the rain stops. It will be very painful and depressing to watch my house empty out not to mention difficult as I have to do most of it by myself in my weakened condition. I have also located a small camper shell for my truck at a reasonable price so I will have a place to crawl in and sleep as a contingency if I don't qualify for public housing through social services. I'm presently on the waiting list. I really won't have a place to go or anything to do for work barring odd jobs and menial work once I lose this place. I'm totally unprepared for any of this and it all could have been avoided if they (Wells Fargo/Wachovia) had just been willing to work with me instead of going the other greedy, uncaring direction. I don't know if it's appropriate but if anyone wants to put a face on me and my story they can access my web site as you did (http://www.lwdesignhouse.com) to see what is being destroyed. I left a message for Cara Milgate to call me so we can discuss my situation as you suggested and I plan to file a demurrer to the unlawful detainer (simply put, a plea to the court for dismissal of the banks lawsuit on the grounds that their claims are insufficient or defective) which may buy a little more time. I will probably lose without the legal experience their lawyers have but I have to try. I do have a legal advisor for help with this, thank God.

It appears from everything I've read on the internet while I search for hope and salvation that there is a preponderance of evidence being bantered about of wrongdoing and unlawful behavior by the lenders but nothing concrete is being done. It seems to be too fragmented and isolated through individual lawsuits and attempts at class actions to be doing much good yet. I find myself overwhelmed with too much information and opinions, most of which I don't understand. There has to be someone in a position of power or expertise out there that can step up on a national level and pull all this information and the millions of desperate people affected together and stop this blight on our country before it's too late. Maybe there is and I haven't found their site. I, like so many others didn't do anything wrong, I was just a victim of some unfortunate circumstances and I truly want a chance to start over at a financial level in line with the current economy, not the old one. It's only fair. I've severed ties with most of my customers of twenty or twenty five years as I start closing down the studio so it might take some time to start up again but I think I still have something to contribute and the desire to do so.

I'll try and stay in touch and I will keep fighting until they 'pull this computer from my cold, dead hands'. Please urge everyone to do the same.

Bless you Kelly for your caring and perseverance,
(post this if you think it will help or make a difference)

Larry
Larry Wilson

BUT OF COURSE! ONCE AGAIN, I MUST TIP MY HAT TO THIS EXPERT.

WHY THEY WON’T HELP
UNLESS YOU ARE DELINQUENT
Posted on February 14, 2011 by Neil Garfield

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary

The question has been asked by so many readers that I figured I would give them my answer on the subject in an article.

The first reason why the pretender lenders won’t help you unless you are delinquent or in default on your payments is pure math: the longer you pay the carrying charges on the house, the longer you pay the interest rate that is over- market, and the longer you are paying to amortize a loan whose principal is far over fair market value, the less time the pretender lender must incur costs and the longer they can stretch out the mortgage mess. Each day they are making more money on the mortgage mess. why stop it?

The second reason the pretender lenders won’t help you unless you are delinquent or in default is that it would require them to justify downgrading a performing mortgage that is held on their books at a much higher level (the original principal due). Of course the loans shouldn’t actually be on their books to begin with, and they are probably not there if you take a close look. What you’ll find are liabilities and assets that were conjured out of thin air in the form of exotic derivatives including synthetic collateralized debt obligations.

And the third reason the pretender lenders won’t help you unless you are delinquent or in default is that it would be a tacit admission that the original “math” used in the origination of the loan, was wrong, at best. In fact, it is quite easy to upscale the reasoning that there is no way they couldn’t have known that the loans they were claiming to be part of a fictitious securitization structure were intentionally misstated through inflation of the appraised value, and skipping all the industry standards for underwriting a loan — standards that are meant to assure the high probability that the loan will be repaid. This admission would clearly be used against them by investors who suing the investment banks in greater and greater numbers and borrowers who so far have not sued the investment banks but limited their lawsuits to the loan originators, aggregators, servicers and of course MERS.

And the reason the government won’t consider helping you unless you are delinquent or in default, is that the decision-makers have accepted the axiom from Wall Street that you don’t deserve it. According to their way of thinking, you signed up for a loan that about which you have regrets. That’s called “buyer’s remorse” and there is, for the most part, no political or judicial doctrine by which buyer’s remorse can be converted into a remedy. The axiom from Wall Street that is taken as self-evidently true is that you misbehaved — you bought a bigger house than you could afford and agreed to terms that you could not afford to pay. Of course what is missing from this “axiom” is that it is wrong. And THAT is why the lawyers in court are concentrating on two things when they represent the pretender lenders — getting the Judge to go head down into the paperwork instead of looking at the facts, and advancing the presumption that the original closing was properly documented.

Thus the issues of whether the documents were properly TRANSFERRED distracts attention from the original transaction. Close examination of the documents signed at “closing” will most often reveal two counter-intuitive issues — first that the actual transaction was between the borrower and an undisclosed lender with terms, fees, conditions and restrictions that were not disclosed in the required pre-closing documents and which were never documented at all at the Closing,” and second, that the documents that were produced and signed at the “closing” refer to a transaction that never took place. The fact that the Borrower accepted the benefits of the funding of a loan gives rise to an obligation or liability, to be sure. But that mere fact that a liability exists does not constitute a substitute for the documentation required by law, or the recording and registration requirements imposed by the State and County. AND the mere existence of documentation with the name of the borrower on it is no substitute for documents contain ALL the required data describing the actual transaction that took place.

In plain language the documents do not track the cash transaction and the cash transaction does not conform to the documents.

So the final answer to the question is that by limiting their “efforts” (false as they may be) to modifications and settlements of non-performing loans, they eliminate scrutiny of the other 80% of loans (performing loans) whose validity and enforceability are at best questionable and at worst actionable for compensatory and punitive damages. And THAT in turns leads to the fundamental question of whether the pretender lender actually has any authority to settle. Of course they don’t. Neither they nor any party they purport to represent was ever the lender or buyer of the loan.
Spread the word

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
Mind Reader
To discuss ourselves our misgivings

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud
« UNITY OF ALL BORROWERS: NOW EVERYONE IS FEELING THE PAIN BKR Judge Finds MERS Has No Right To Transfer Mortgages, Finds Entire MERS Process Illegal »
Like
Be the first to like this post.
23 Responses

cubed2k, on February 15, 2011 at 10:00 am said:

See, here is how wall st/banks/gov’t keep their game going, keep you in debt game, all the while they keep making money and they pay cash for everything.

Let’s say you have saved 250,000.00. You see a house you like and want to buy, it is 200,000.00. See, they say well it’s better to get a mortgage for 180,000 with 20k down. Your interest is 5%. Now you can earn probably better than than 5% in the stock market or bonds or whatever, so it makes more sense to not pay all cash for the house. See, they kept you in their game. By you making mortgage payments you are in debt, and they then create ABS/MBS out of your debt, AND they get you to invest in their other secondary game of stocks/bonds/etc. And then they boom and bust this cycle over and over, first one group of things – commodities, stocks, now housing.
And when credit=money is easy to get, prices go up like houses, cars, big ticket items, after all by using credit you are buying the monthly payment and the high purchase price doesn’t seem so bad, you can afford the monthly payment. And when credit=money gets tight or hard to obtain, why prices go down again somewhat, but you are trapped in the debt payments. Round and round it goes.

ANONYMOUS, on February 15, 2011 at 6:39 am said:

MSoliman,

Abby is right. And, there is no end — Fed now wants to privatize 90% of forward mortgages with the likes of BofA and Chase leading the way.

Despite everything you say — they are not listening – and have not stopped the abuse in courts — which they KNOW is fraudulent.

MSoliman, on February 15, 2011 at 12:56 am said:

Abby . . . ..Come on ….be nice

MSoliman, on February 15, 2011 at 12:48 am said:

Ian

Good good questions! They take a write down or variable (unknown) open charge on acquisition price or transferring value. Variable for Fixed and for what “Capitation”

Hmmm No can Do !

It’s all condition subsequent AND FOR A REASON (NO ATTY WILL LISTEN) NO CONDITION PRECEDENT ….OKAY FIRST CAUSE OF . . .
FOR A REASON – – Also, who said they charged of the Inventors CAPITAL ACCOUNT stock Trust preferred against Mortgages?

These are reverse repos accounted for as bulk write downs and line item or “spot” reverse entry …..like accretion…get it …

CF transfers into foreclosure . . . each is entered (I guess) as a line item recovery. Deleted maybe –

Debt collector pays cash under Risk Loss Share –CREDIT BID / WTF (Fed – - – Where’s the Fed – - I found them!)
WTF get it …now? Never mind.

N O Bankster’s, Bankster’s and MERS are @!$$#@ are off hanging our other places.

And it’s all in the court now of the bet team one could ever imagine – - –

Robo Signers and the boss …
the FED ! & Debt Collectors

IS THE FED MAKING MONEY! WOW!
HAVING FUN …..You Bet No hobo Robo Jail time

So CREDIT BID BABY CREDIT BID –

Fed uses TARP to act as compensating balances or something …but when you charge assets your closing out accounts , or repossessing homes , or depositor’s funds used to credit warehouse lines…. or ??

Seriously, Its bad deal all the way around and the US tax payer is taking the hit….It’s the opposite of what the congress and Senate envisioned in the great depression.

Brother, take a shot you cannot lose. Try to explain this to others here –in E N G L I S H

I just cannot get through….and these areas of discussion are carving the fat of MERS and etc etc off and striking the bone of contention for preparing for the fight of your life – defending the home .

Do I believe you can win? yes – what’s happening is American ingenuity and it rewards all primary secondary and capital markets – with TAX PAYER MONEY …WOW LOVE IT
But if you fight it will reward you too

….but fight the right fight and lose the AUNTI EM MERS AND ROMANO SIGNITURES arguments, and Notary lies , and Lakers on the road arguments . . .

Call me anytime to cover GAAP and these thought’s
Outstanding Questions.

M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com

Abby in CA, on February 14, 2011 at 10:31 pm said:

The SEC named Eileen Rominger its director of investment management. She had been Goldman’s global chief investment officer.”

Will the goofiness never end!!

What next? Will the SEC retain Bernie Madoff as an expert witness?

More on Rominger:

The 56-year-old Rominger will start work in February at the division that protects investors and promotes capital formation through oversight and regulation of the nation’s multitrillion-dollar investment management industry, the SEC announced in a statement. For the past 11 years, she worked at Goldman Sachs, most recently serving as the firm’s global chief investment officer.

Ian, on February 14, 2011 at 7:24 pm said:

ANONYMOUS-thanks for reply. In re: most subprime loans were refinances, as of course the borrowers already owned their homes, and had for some time. The public is severely deceived when told, regarding the “subprime crisis”, the “mortgage crisis”, that the people “bought too much house”, bought “more house than they could afford” etc. When in fact they didn’t buy a house, they (most) already owned their homes. Pathetic, and the press has most TV watchers believing this.

Deb wynn, on February 14, 2011 at 6:57 pm said:

Anon and m
Soliman for gods sake hook up

ANONYMOUS, on February 14, 2011 at 6:43 pm said:

Neil puts forth an excellent synopsis in the above. However , (know you hate my “howevers” Neil) — most of the subprime lending — if not 100% — were for refinances — not new home purchases. Although new home purchases are also big subject of fraud, refinances were to homeowners who had already owned their homes for quite some time. The target was the home equity in the home.

As to why no help or mods is considered until delinquency – is because this allows enough time to “bump” the loan out of the securitized trust to debt buyers who are waiting in the wings. This is the way it works for ALL asset-backed securitized trusts.

Many are even victims who were told to default — and then “caught” in foreclosure process. Once a loan no longer has productive cash flow receivables — the loan is useless to the bank. Proprietary agreements then take hold..

M. Soliman is correct — “After three payments the loan is deleted.” — ie— POOF!! GONE!!!!

Kim Thomas, on February 14, 2011 at 6:43 pm said:

CALL YOUR SENATORS-CONGRESSMAN-ATTORNEY GENERALS.DO NOT LOSE THE MOMENTUM!! MA-RI-CT HOMEOWNERS! FIND OUT ABOUT GEORGE BABCOCK RECLAIMING AMERICA ONE YARD AT A TIME. MA.& RI & CT.IF YOUR HOME HAS BEEN FORECLOSED ON CALL US WE WILL MAKE IT RIGHT FOR YOU. WE CAN HELP YOU RIGHT AWAY! NO FAMILY LEFT BEHIND! BUDGET PLANS FOR EVERYONE.WE CAN HELP YOU STAY IN YOUR HOME. THE BANKS MADE A LOT OF MISTAKES IN THE PAPERWORK AND WE OFFER TO FIND THEM.FREE CONSULTATION ON ANY LEGAL MATTER.CALL KIM THOMAS 401-352-5609 or 401-274-1905. WE CAN HELP THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE E.BABCOCK ………………………………………………………………………ESQUIRE. CHECK OUT OUR WEBSITE: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.babcocklawoffices.com%2F&h=911e4
IF YOU HAVE A MERS WHICH STANDS FOR MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SERVICES WHICH WOULD BE IN MOST CASES ON THE 1ST PAGE OF YOUR MORTGAGE PARAGRAPH C. CALL KIM THOMAS OR GEORGE BABCOCK AT 401-724-1904 AND GET RELIEF FROM YOUR PROBLEM!

neidermeyer, on February 14, 2011 at 5:34 pm said:

foreclosurefight

please e:mail me at brian_tracy AT cfl.rr.com

I’m about to go down the QT path with WF / AHMSI / Deutsche and I would like to know what you have learned ..

Thanks..

Ian, on February 14, 2011 at 3:34 pm said:

msoliman- tell us, if the notes “securing” the mortgage-backed pools have been charged to zero, and then sold to debt collectors, vulture funds, hedge funds or whatever: Correct me, but once these debts are charged off, have the banks not taken a deduction based on their declaration that these notes are worthless? And if these notes are then sold again, isn’t this in contravention of their “loss” and therefore IRS rules? What are they doing? And how are they accounting for it? They can’t collect the same debt more than once, and if they are charging them to zero, they are collecting insofar as the chargeoff is reducing their taxable income. Yes No Maybe?

MSoliman, on February 14, 2011 at 3:04 pm said:

The FDIC program for eliminating the overhang (lingering borrowers interest in title securing non recourse debt ) of troubled legacy loans –

includes mortgage backed securities charged from the books of participating banks — its happening through the use of private incentives to pre-qualified private buyers in the form of significant equity participations alongside an equal U.S. Treasury co-investment and fully guaranteed debt.

Challenge the PPIP structure envisions a market driven auction process designed to encourage both potential sellers and buyers, guided by independent valuation advice, to facilitate appropriate price determination for those legacy assets.

The FDIC intends to maintain rigorous oversight of the entire process so as to both encourage identification of legacy loans and securities to be sold by banks and the participation of pre-qualified bidders in the auction process.

THAT’S YOUR GOVERNEMENT PUTTING TAX PAYER DOLLARS TO WORK – TO BETTER SERVE THE AMERICAN NIGHTMARE – FORECLOSURE

m.soliman
expert.witness@live.com

MSoliman, on February 14, 2011 at 2:57 pm said:

After three payments the loan is deleted. MERS prohibits the securties registrant from talking to you .Three payments is where the SPECIAL SERVICER comes in.Deleted loans never happened. No can talk to you till then- survey says FAS 140-3 GAAP fraud for controllling interest in assets pledged as interest in common trust shares.

msoliman say’s read your Wileys GAAP and win !

m. soliman
expert.witness@live.com

Bob, on February 14, 2011 at 2:36 pm said:

Judge Finds MERS Has No Right To Transfer Mortgages, Finds Entire MERS Process Illegal

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/judge-finds-mers-has-no-right-transfer-mortgages

E. Tolle, on February 14, 2011 at 1:37 pm said:

Jan van Eck….what India said. I always look forward to your replies. Thanks for sharing your insights.

Ditto, on February 14, 2011 at 1:22 pm said:

pelucheven

Can you go to the sheriff sale and and document a “sale” to a pretender? We may be faced with the same issue soon.

Can someone outline the sheriff sale procedures and what we should look for and then do afterwards?

India, on February 14, 2011 at 1:18 pm said:

@Jan Van Eck: I’ve noted your responses on this site and each one is cogent, succinct and remarkably informed. Is there a way that any of us can contact you or some manner in which we can access more of your observations, assessments? Perhaps a blog?

Neil’s blog has been a major source of information and support. Your contributions have been significant and indicate a deep comprehension of the vagaries and deceit inherent in the current mortgage situation. I feel confident that there are others who read this blog who would greatly appreciate further advice and guidance from you.

pelucheven, on February 14, 2011 at 12:35 pm said:

dear jan,

that is precisely what they did in my case.

First Magnus presold the loan to a yet to be determined pool, according to the settlement documents the pool may have been with lehman bros. and Arora was suposed to be the servicer. first magnus went Bkd, and now four years after the loan was rescinded, dischrged in our bk 7, the Firzt magnus people come out with a blank endorsed note, a deed of trust with MERS, they never showed and or filed a claim in our Bk7, and the judge tells us the creditors are not reauired to file claims.

so they can come back after the fact, you have already gone through BK7, YOU CANNOT REFILE, AND THEY STEAL YOUR HOUSE. EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE PAID OFF BEFORE SETTLEMENT.

I JUST DO NOT GET IT.

THEY CAN BREAK ALL THE LAWS, FAIL TO FILE CLAIMS, DEFRAUD YOU, ROBBED YOU OF ALL YOUR SAVINGS AND RETIREMENT AND NOTHING HAPPENS TO THEM.

I AM SO DISAPOINTED AT THIS OUR FORMER GREAT COUNTRY.

I GUESS IT WAS OUR FAULT TO BUY INTO THE “AMERICAN DREAM”

phil a, on February 14, 2011 at 11:29 am said:

Jan van Eck , Could you let me know how could I or [ maybe not ], buy into the bond [ pool ] that i am supposedly assigned to. I have the name of the pool. This way I can prove that the insurance has paid off my / other loans. Niel ,I wouldlike your opinion as well. Maybe a story about peeling open the pool. Thanks in advance.

Deb wynn, on February 14, 2011 at 11:19 am said:

I talked to a dear pro se freind today… Ucc article 3 3202, 3204,a) andc) instruments of negotiation. If there is no record of negotiation and the psa acts as a defeasance to the mortgage/ deed of trust then the deed is void. Can we challenge the instrument itself which was never negotiated …. also see Nash case. Comments please

foreclosurefight, on February 14, 2011 at 11:11 am said:

I thought I have seen/heard it all…but I stand corrected.

I just had to sign for a “Certified Mail” package from AHMSI…

They are offering a “Modification” of our “Mortgage” for which Deutsche bought at Sheriff Sale in November 2009!!!!

WTF?!?!?

We are currently still living in our house and have not made a mortgage payment since September 2008!!!

We are currently in the middle of a Quiet Title Action with these bastards!!!

EULE, on February 14, 2011 at 11:11 am said:

May be a new lawsuit ? If I can proof , that I try to modified my mortgage for more than 2 years , and now , the server write me , he is not the lender ,he can not modified my mortgage ,than I think the server should pay for this time the interest.He know that already 2 years ago ??

Jan van Eck, on February 14, 2011 at 10:46 am said:

While everything Neil says (above) is perfectly true, that is STILL not the final word, and I think it also overlooks the “ultimate” reason why there are no mods or even discussion of mods until there is a substantial (multi-month) default. In my view, it overlooks the role that “credit-default swap” insurance would play. If the homeowner “defaults” on the paper payment stream, the “trustee” of the security goes after the CDS insurer, and says: “Hey, it is in default, pay us the full value of the principal!” And then these guys write the check (with taxpayer bailout money, to be sure).

Nobody is writing checks on non-defaulted loans. So they tell you to be in default for three or four months, and then unknown to you the entire loan is already paid by the CDS insurance.

Now the fun begins: with the “Note” paid off, the person who is still sitting on the “Note” goes and digs it out of some vault, sells it or indorses it n blank, and “someone” shows up at your courthouse to convince the judge that you are a bum and please give us this man’s house. Nobody tells the Judge that the Note is paid by insurance. Nobody tells the Judge that the Note does not even describe the Obligation. And nobody tells the Judge that the Note even if valid is not properly the property of the entity claiming ownership – those guys paid nothing for the Note, all they did was dig it out of a vault, have some robo-signer stamp it and get an “assignment” to someone else, and without any “consideration” (money changing hands) the fresh outfit goes and grabs your house.

So, in order to set the chain of theft in motion, you start it off by your “default” so that the insurance kicks in, and so forth. And now you know the “real” reason that these bums give you such lousy advice. Greed.

Monday, February 28, 2011

REQUIRED READING

Related articles

Related articles

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Related articles

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Related articles

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Related articles

Monday, February 21, 2011

Related articles

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Related articles

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

DO YOU NEED HELP TO AVOID FORECLOSURE?