ARE YOU A VICTIM OF WELLS FARGO'S PAIN?: HOW TO DETECT MORTGAGE SECURITIZATION FRAUD?

Sunday, July 31, 2011

HOW TO DETECT MORTGAGE SECURITIZATION FRAUD?

Detecting Mortgage Securitization Fraud

Posted on July 21, 2011 by Neil Garfield

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

SUBMITTED BY JAY

Here is how-to detect mortgage securitization fraud and determine improper mortgage securitization.

1. Loan Modification Denied.

Believe it or not when the mortgage lender denies a loan modification this is usually a sign that something else may be wrong with the mortgage loan. When homeowners are denied a loan modification for whatever reasons they should research information about the mortgage securitization of their loans.

2. Original Mortgage Note Missing.

Many times mortgage lenders will seek to supply a COPY of the mortgage note to foreclose. In order to foreclose the mortgage lender must be in possession of the original mortgage note.

3. Truth and Lending Violations.

Mortgage lenders who abuse Truth and Lending Act violations are prone to carryout wrongful foreclosures.

4. No Enforceable Security Interest.

Whenever requested the mortgage lender is required to proof the right to collect on the debt owed. Generally, producing documents such as the mortgage note, BOGUS assignment transfer, payment history, etc. However, rarely will the mortgage lender provide documentation to show enforceable security interest as a Holder In Due Course.

Please note the assignment transfer would make the securitization proper if the majority were not bogus documents.

5. Squiggle Mark and Line Signatures.

When the mortgage assignment transfer signatures at the bottom appear to be hard to read such as a squiggle mark or line intended to be a signature. In actual the squiggle mark and line is not easily identifiable as the signature name that matches the printed name.

6. ROBO Signer.

The reason that most mortgage assignments are bogus is because they contain signatures of Robo Signers. These individuals are typically not real employees of the mortgage lender which makes the assignment transfer fraud. Robo signers do not independently fact check and confirm the information of mortgage assignments as accurate or true which is required to complete an assignment transfer of mortgage.

You can also Google the name of the person who is allegedly authorized to sign on behalf of the mortgage lender listed at the bottom of your mortgage assignment transfer. Simply conduct a search of the name with the term Robo Signer.

“Enter Bogus Name Officer, Mortgage Lender Name At Bottom, Robo Signer”

This is a good starting point for detecting mortgage securitization fraud.

Filed under: foreclosure, Investor, CDO, Eviction, CORRUPTION, securities fraud, currency,Mortgage, GTC | Honor, bubble Tagged: | fraud, foreclosures, foreclosure, modification,bankruptcy, foreclosure defense, borrower, disclosure, countrywide, trustee, RESPA,securitization, rescission, quiet title, foreclosure offense, TILA audit, LOAN MODIFICATION

« CYBERATTACKS ON LIVINGLIES AND OTHER CONSUMER HELP SITES?MEMBER NEWSLETTER: AHC LAUNCHING SERVICES AND TRADING DESK FOR BAD MORTGAGES AND FORECLOSURES »

Be the first to like this post.

39 Responses

Robert Koenig, on July 25, 2011 at 11:12 am said:
“Believe it or not when the mortgage lender denies a loan modification this is usually a sign that something else may be wrong with the mortgage loan. When homeowners are denied a loan modification for whatever reasons they should research information about the mortgage securitization of their loans.”
Fascinating!
Probably . . . : it is best to play completely dumb and to leave to the lender the proof of all material facts and documentation.
johngault, on July 23, 2011 at 5:27 pm said:
Correction. I said :
” I acknowledge that the original deed of trust states that MERS may be the nominee for the original lender’s successors and or assigns, but the record produces no evidence the current claimant is the successor or assign of the original lender. ”
should read: “……produces no evidence that the party for whom MERS alleges to assign the deed of trust is the successor or assignee of the original lender”.
johngault, on July 23, 2011 at 4:42 pm said:
Jay said, “These individuals are typically not real employees of the mortgage lender which makes the assignment transfer fraud.”
Pardon, Jay, no, that is not correct. What makes an assignment really bogus and fraud is when it is executed by a party with no right to sign it, and primarily because an assignment may only be executed by the
party who owns the deed of trust. If that party is A, then B may certainly not assign it to itself. And if it’s A, and someone alleges to sign it for A to B, still that authorization to do so must exist. It is relevant who the signor works for, but the real problem is that with robosignors, they are working for party B to assign party A’s deed of trust to party B.
And of course, robo-signors have no knowledge of the factual basis of a dang thing. They don’t have a clue who is the proper party to
execute an assignment of a dot. That holds true for these yeahoo
alleged appointees of MERS, the enabler of the loss of those things held most dear by Americans….the enabler of the state of our economy, the enabler of criminality. I better quit.
johngault, on July 23, 2011 at 3:56 pm said:
or add this to the assignment with all the rest of it:
If I am not an employee of Joe Bankster #3409, someone, I don’t know who, must have appointed me as a person to sign these assignments for I also don’t know who last beneficiary. Snce I don’t know who appointed me, or under what authority, to sign this assignment for I don’t know who, I can’t have any knowledge about the party I am assigning this for or my own authorrity to sign nor the factual basis for this assignment.
When assignments are done, there is an ‘assumption’ of their
legitimacy. Actually, there needn’t be. I think the failure is to make the right arguments. So look at the attack necessary:
where is the alleged agent status of MERS – where is it written, literally, that MERS has any relationship (agent whatever the heck) with the current ‘lender’/beneficiary/mortgageee (these misusea of these words is all so heinous, and the legislators allowed it)? Yeah, the dot says “its successors and or assigns”. Well, okay, slick. Show us that first of all the new guy IS a successor or assign. What would it take to show this? Ths may vary between lien theory and title-theory states.
I can’t speak readily to lien-theory, but in title-theory states, it would require a complete chain of title, which necessary must include written assignments to everyone in the act along the way. Unless those
necessary written assignments each and every re-appointed MERS
as nominee, MERS is outie and no longer can even purport to assign a deed of trust , regardless of the schmoe really doing so in MERS’
name.
The relationship of a party to a deed of trust necessary to execute an assignment can never be assumed, nor the relationship of the parties to MERS.
“Your honor, I see no evidence of MERS relationship with the unknown party for whom it now purports to assign the deed of trust.
That relationship may exist, but as the record stands, there simply is no evidence. I acknowledge that the original deed of trust states that MERS will be the nominee for the original lender’s successors and or assigns, but the record produces no evidence the current claimant is the successor or assign of the original lender.
Even with such findings in the claimant’s favor after any award by this court of time to the bankster to produce this evidence, the record shows no evidence the person executing the assignment in MERS’ name is authorized to execute the assignment in MERS’ name. MERS itself has no employees, and on information and belief, Mr. Peters is an employee of chop-shop A or the claimant, Joe Bankster #3409 (pick one). That authority may exist, but as the record stands, there is no evidence that it does.
A long established maxim of law is that a party may not be deprived of real property without due process. Due process is a constitutionally protected right. To avoid the facts necessary to establish the parties rights would be a violation of that due process. “
johngault, on July 23, 2011 at 2:30 pm said:
If those assignmenst were signed appropriately, they would look like this, and remain gargage:
“I assign this deed of trust to my employer, Joe Bankster #3409
________________________________
patrick killemquick, an employee of Joe Bankster # 3409, as alleged straw officer/nominee of MERS, itself as alleged-but-no proof-agent of unknown Party A, who is not the original beneficiary named in the deed of trust, but is alleged (which is enough for me) to be a successor in interest or assignee of the original beneficiary if only by an agreement similarly unknown and unverified and additionally with no evidence any of the parties referenced herein are even MERS’ members, or if they were ever shown to be, that this assignment comports with MERS’ rules of membership regarding assignments by members in MERS’ name.
There may be several unrecorded intervening assignments of this deed of trust, such as an unrecorded assignment to a securitized trust / trustee called for in the psa relevant to this deed of trust, which would nullify this assignment in that it lacks factual basis, but discovery was not done nor was this information tendered pursuant to any rules including rule 26, so it doesn’t really matter. In recognition of this recently discovered information by the public, my employer Joe Bankster may be a debt collection outfit who is more willing to
worry about these issues than Joe Bankster 3407 who had actually settled all his alleged beefs relevant to this deed of trust, IF any, anyway.
Disclaimer: I have no actual knowledge of the factual basis for this assignment. As an employee of Joe Bankster #3409, it is not in my job description.
Some title company will insure over all this because the homeowner doesn’t have the savvy or money to say jack.
johngault, on July 23, 2011 at 1:42 pm said:
@steve – you just answered your own question. File a mtn or an action for citing the statutes you just mentioned to compel compliance with those statutes. Check yellow pages or google paralegal in your area if you are too tmid to get your own loislaw account and do the research yourself. Then do find a paralegal to help you with the pleading.
Get the loislaw account! In search terms, just enter those statutes.
You could try , of course . searching those terms at google /yahoo and see what pops up.
@davidw – that was a decision reached in a cal bk court recently. It’s not binding precedent, but I’d assert it anyway because it’s factually correct, and it’s about damn time this bs was addressed and seen as the bs it is.
“In re Koontz”., about which I am downright thrilled. I have been yelling about this for a long time now. The court said the assignment by a bankster employee wearng a MERS’ straw-officer hat was garbage. Straw-officer was employee of bankster, not employee of MERS – MERS has no employees, to start with. Search for Koontz; if you can’t find it, I’ll post it.
These bs assignments are “self’assignment” and are in my
opinion additionally fraudulent. And btw, MERS’ actual bs membership agreement with its members states that the only time a member (read: “member/servicer-employee-wearing MERS’-straw-officer-hat”) may even do a bs assignment in its name (did you get that – “do an assignment in its name”?) is to a non-MERS’ member, which additionally calls for the loan to be de-activated from the MERS database and the assignment recorded to the non-member in the county land records. At the risk of sounding like whatever, as to this , I say “Hear ye! Hear ye!”
Someone argued to me that the straw officer at the servicer is the nominee of MERS, so it;s okay. Bs. It’s not okay. MERS is the alleged nominee or agent (pick one) of its principal, the beneficiary. Let’s pick agent for this.
Mers is the ALLEGED agent of A, whose identity is unknown, with no evidence of that relationship with party unknown A. The thing we do know is that party A is no longer the party named in the deed of trust as the lender. If it were, it might be one thing, but it isnt’, Mers appoints a straw officer at B’s as its own nominee in MERS’ alleged capacity of agent for party unknown with no apparent authority as agent for unknown party A. So now we’ve got MERS, with no apparent authority of its own to represent unknown party A, purporting to appoint a member-servicer’s employee as MERS’ nominee to execute an assignment for unknown party A to the member-servicer, that is, to itself, the real employer of this alleged
MERS’ nominee.
The Koontz court said “Not” because the straw officer was not an
employee of MERS. The Koontz court did not reach the other considerations here. It was enough for that judge that the staw officer was not an employee of MERS. He said the assignment was invalid, and he may even have gone on to call it the sham it is.
marina, on July 22, 2011 at 11:09 pm said:
I want to know: where do and what are the markers to find verifying the trust no longer exists because I have noticed that typically after a year the trusts stop reporting on the SEC site. would it be when they are not showing up in the IRS Publications 938? (If my trust does not show up in ANY quarter since origination does that mean it never REALLY existed? or…?
2) Which assignment happens first: to the trustee then the trust? or to the trust then the trustee?
ANGRY ABOUT ALL THE LIES FROM ALL SIDES, on July 22, 2011 at 3:40 pm said:
In one very winnable case in Virginia, Fairfax County to be exact. The homeowner had finance the purchase of his home through WAMU, the loan was table funded all the way. once the client got in trouble with his most likely fully paid off mortgage. He hired an attorney in Northen Virginia that after considering my findings took my friends case. In this case EMC a known predatory servicer denied a loan modification, right before foreclosure another attempt by the home owner to modify was ignored and the loan was transferred to MARIX another known predatory but more aggressive servicer that in their own web site boast of ther ability to do a “PAPERLESS” process and that they can reporduce the right documentation. EMC and MARIX exchanged assignments back and forward, three times before the foreclosure sale all notarized outside Virginia and signatures by the same person in three different states.
EMC is not a lender, the loan was allegedly part of an undisclosed pool, the note was never produced a copy of an allonge was generated and signed by an alleged officer of WAMU two years after that banks had ceased to exist.
Big fraud here. The borrower’s lawyers allow the foreclosure to take place even though they had been paid, tru incomptenece of their part. The borrower still went ahead and tried to push the lawyers to pursue the lawsuit, only a lis pendis was filed, one lis pendis and an eviction of his home cost this Northern Virginia resident a Navy Veteran almost $13,000 in layers fees.
This is why we the borrowers keep losing, we keep hiring thieves for lawyers. And the lousy arguments continue to flood the courts due to badly prepared and ill informed lawyers that may not even qualify as greeters at our Walmart stores and I ask all those of you who due to need have become Walmart greeters, that you are better qualified than all these lawyers put together in a blender.
tnharry, on July 22, 2011 at 12:05 pm said:
@T Nguyen – what was the name of the bogus trust?
Ann, on July 22, 2011 at 6:39 am said:
If you look at campaign contributions to Florida Attorney General Bondi, a certain address comes up a lot: 601 Riverside Avenue in Jacksonville. It’s the home of Lender Processing Services, its subsidiaries, and the company it recently spun off from, Fidelity National Financial.
Altogether, those companies gave $6,500 to Bondi’s campaign directly. They also gave $78,000 to the Republican Party of Florida – which was itself a major funder of Bondi’s campaign.
Finally, Lender Processing Services recently hired a new senior vice president for government affairs – Joe Jacquot, who until recently was an assistant attorney general for Bondi.
Lender Processing Services did not respond to a request for an interview. Jacquot told the Sarasota Herald-Tribune that he has “no particular insight” into the investigation against Lender Processing Services.
Read more at http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2011/07/21/bondi-poor-performance-not-politics-led-to-ouster-of-robo-signing-investigators-lps-contributions/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ForeclosureFraudByDinsfla+%28FORECLOSURE+FRAUD+%7C+by+DinSFLA%29
T Nguyen, on July 21, 2011 at 9:27 pm said:
BOfA tried to sneak one by me. They tried to foreclose in the name of a bogus trust. Never had intention to gave a loan mod. I filed a complain with the State Ag, OCC, senators. They finally rescinded the NOD. Ready for round 2. Thanks Neil for the knowledge.
davies910, on July 21, 2011 at 6:15 pm said:
Here is an OSC against Onewest and the judge in SD California is ordering Christopher Hoo to appear.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/60593521/Davies-V-Deutsche-Bank-Appellate-Request-for-Judicial-Notice-2-onewest-bank-deutsche-bank
cubed2k, on July 21, 2011 at 5:06 pm said:
I think you have a point there TNHARRY on filing suit for RESPA violation in sending a QWR if no response or non-answer response. I had originally thought it a moot point to recover $1000 but now that I think of it, the suit opens the door and at least one has some sort of proof that one is trying to find out who actually owns the loan as opposed to trying to get a free house.
ANONYMOUS, on July 21, 2011 at 2:51 pm said:
Jack
Loan level files are completely invalid. First, in order for conveyance there must be a Mortgage Schedule. And, it order for a Mortgage Schedule, there must be a valid purchase agreement — with complete chain executed as stated in PSA/Prospectus (otherwise you have securities fraud — which is why security investors are winning — even though they have already been paid by swaps).
And, if you happen to find a Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement — with attached mortgage schedule — that Purchase Agreement cannot be an “intent to sell” — must be an actual sale of the mortgage and note with valid execution and notarization. Have never seen one Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement that is not just an “intent” to sell. Do not exist.
leapfrog, on July 21, 2011 at 2:20 pm said:
@Jack: Don’t know what state you reside in, but here in CA Steve Vondran had a class action suit against World Savings/Wachovia. Its too late to join know, but I’m thinking he might know a lot more dirt on them.
http://newportbeachforeclosurelawyer.com/post/1544402/last-call-for-world-savings-and-wachovia-option-arm-loans-no-advance-fees-charged-chance-for-principal-balance-reduction
carie, on July 21, 2011 at 2:19 pm said:
So, Joe Blow can just come in and foreclose on anybody at any time with no proof of anything if you are in non-judicial?
tnharry, on July 21, 2011 at 2:12 pm said:
are you a nonjudicial state? if so, they don’t need proof of anything, do they? they just do it. maybe you’ll be in 1% that sue but maybe you wont….
tnharry, on July 21, 2011 at 2:10 pm said:
it’s a very simple case carie. could be done pro se easily. they either did or didn’t respond to the QWR
carie, on July 21, 2011 at 1:48 pm said:
And how can a pretender lender foreclose without proof of conveyance?
carie, on July 21, 2011 at 1:42 pm said:
Actually, tn, what they did send me wasn’t what I asked for…it was a “form letter” saying that my loan was “pooled” into such and such trust, which is owned by Deutsche Bank…which is SAME LETTER they sent me when I asked them who owns my loan.
So, obviously, they got the QWR—they just can’t show proof of conveyance because it never happened…and they are lying.
So, yes, I would like to sue them, but if I open that can of worms, I will have to deal with all of their BS-laden attorneys throwing all kinds of crap my way, and I have zero funds for any of it.
Marie, on July 21, 2011 at 12:37 pm said:
Tn
Too late for me. They sent me a frivolous response and “sold” my property 6 wk later before I knew it was in the works I’m too distracted with surviving day to day
tnharry, on July 21, 2011 at 11:38 am said:
this is my point – more useful info needs to be shared here and it shouldn’t have to come from the comment section
@carie & marie – if you get no response to your QWR, you don’t keep resending it. you sue for violation of RESPA. you get your answers, statutory damages, and attorneys fees. you can find an atty to do this if you want, because they will in most cases be paid through the litigation.
Pat, on July 21, 2011 at 10:54 am said:
tnharry,
Agree with you completely. None of those are legitimate signs of securitization fraud. For example:
Loan mod denied. What if the lender was a porfolio lender and denied the mod? What if the borrower could not qualify for a mod even after interest rate or principal reductions?
I could go on and on, but it won’t mean a thing to most people here. They see “black helicopters” everywhere.
Moreover, they do not want to hear arguments or court cases that would not conform to their own perceived prejudices.
Marie, on July 21, 2011 at 10:53 am said:
Carie
Did they acknowledge receiving the qwr? Send it again.
My mistake was not pounding them again and again on their non answers in their response. Especially as they alleged I had an adjustable rate loan, and I didn’t. Must be pretty much canned responses that they send out. It’s like trying to fight your way through cobwebs. Nothing to get a hold of and oh so infuriating
carie, on July 21, 2011 at 10:32 am said:
So if somebody gets “approved” for a “trial payment plan”, (or a pre-permanent modification of unsecured non-provable of actual creditor debt—as I like to call it), after fighting like hell to get it (before finding out about the massive mortgage fraud), and being treated like total crap along the way, makes one payment, and then they send a QWR saying: Please show me PROOF of conveyance to the Deutsche Bank “securitized trust” that you say my “loan” is in—and they get NO RESPONSE from the servicer…what does that mean? Were talkin’ crickets…absolutely nothing…for months now…
Jack, on July 21, 2011 at 10:24 am said:
If in fact I can get my hands on the loan level files and can confirm that my mortgage is in World Savings REMIC 28, 2007, how important is that to my foreclosure case?
Has Wells Fargo had to repurchase any non performing mortgages back from the trust at Bank of New York? If Wells did repurchase bad loans, how does that work mechanically speaking, does the loan get cleaved off of the REMIC or does Wells pay off the trustee with a one time payment or just take over the non performing loan payments to the trustee until the dust settles?
If Wells does repurchase the non performing loan, do they now own the mortgage again giving them more leverage in foreclosure or is the mortgage left in the REMIC under the trustee in any event?
I am also under the impression that the mortgages inside the REMIC are insured, is that true?
Thanks for your time Neil,
Jack
tnharry, on July 21, 2011 at 10:16 am said:
@Steve – why not start with a QWR and follow it with a suit for violation of RESPA if they don’t respond? as to showing you the recorded deed of trust – isn’t the fact that it’s recorded in the public office kind of self-defeating for an argument over that? if you meant the original DOT, then include it in the QWR also. set up your RESPA claim, dispute the debt and get into a court somehow based on those two things and renew the demand to see those docs via discovery.
@David – I’m not aware of any rules or regulations along the lines of your posting. if you have them, please post and we’d all like to review and comment. MERS has members and agents (those vps you mention) authorized to sign on their behalf. you didn’t say what state you’re in and that matters for MERS. their legitimacy varies from state to state these days as far as their powers. depending on your location, trying to prove fraud using MERS as your angle may not be your best argument
Marie, on July 21, 2011 at 10:09 am said:
Tn
I was surprised as well at the conclusory and unhelpful content of this posting. Nothing to start a war with anyone over though.
I agree we need substance, strategies here. Perhaps we are in a Slough of Despond. I know I am
E. Tolle, on July 21, 2011 at 10:06 am said:
tnharry, pluck the log from your own eye my friend. Two very important questions were raised by two sincere posters underneath of your nonsensical posts so far. 1. How to force the pretend lender out of the woodworks? and 2. How does Mers get by with rampant fraud by using false signers?
Rather than repeatedly turn thumbscrews, why not get to work helping these posters keep from losing their homes, since that seems to be your beef of the moment.
tnharry, on July 21, 2011 at 9:59 am said:
now wouldn’t it have been easier and fewer keys to type to just say “TN, you’re right”??
carie, on July 21, 2011 at 9:52 am said:
tn—take a chill pill, go for a walk, do some meditation—TAKE THE DAY OFF! We are sick of your negativity.
tnharry, on July 21, 2011 at 9:51 am said:
well done carie – but you commented on me as opposed to the article. show me one thing in it that’s not conclusory drivel regurgitated from previous postings
tnharry, on July 21, 2011 at 9:48 am said:
i respect your loyalty leapfrog, i really do. but you can’t honestly say that this article has anything useful in it. when is the last time an article discussed an important case or provided some hard information that could make the difference between keeping and losing your home. you’ve been here longer than I have and it’s no secret that you’re a Neil supporter, but surely you too would agree that this blog today is not what it was only 30 days ago in terms of good, useful tips and techniques to make it work. it’s a lot more theory and editorial then the clear instruction that it has been
carie, on July 21, 2011 at 9:46 am said:
Right on, leapfrog—tn is really starting to stink like old moldy cheese…and worse…
leapfrog, on July 21, 2011 at 9:32 am said:
Tn: You don’t like Neil’s blog? Then start your own – oh that’s right, you would have slim pickings on any readership. I’m really SICK and TIRED of you bashing Neil and homeowners who are looking for help.
davidw, on July 21, 2011 at 9:00 am said:
I’m told by some that an assignor for MERS must be an real paid employee of MERS, at a physical location and may not be an employee of the bank the DOT is allegedly being assigned to. Do we have authorities for this? Virtually all MERS assignments are done by the thousands of assistant vice presidents of MERS. How does one close the circle on this alleged fraud legally?
davidwood100@yahoo.com
Steve, on July 21, 2011 at 8:55 am said:
Does anyone know of a good paralegal for Case Law research?
Steve, on July 21, 2011 at 8:54 am said:
Can anyone sugguest how to force your lender to present you the original NOTE and Recorded Deed of Trust in CA? I know in California the Commercial Code 3501 and also UCC 3-501 are laws that state the Mortgagee Must Present the Documents to the Obliger once final demand for payment is made. However these mortgagees refuse to comply with these laws.