ARE YOU A VICTIM OF WELLS FARGO'S PAIN?: REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTIONS CREATE TRAP DOOR FOR BANKS

Thursday, May 29, 2014

REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTIONS CREATE TRAP DOOR FOR BANKS

Posted on May 26, 2014 by Neil Garfield

I think you should win this one if you do it right.

The banks fall right through the trap door on this one —- they prove that there was probable cause to believe that they were a valid creditor on the note (UCC3) but not a valid enforcer under the deed of trust (mortgage) (UCC9).

By alleging they are a holder and not a holder in due course they are admitting they didn’t pay for it and/or admitting that they took delivery with knowledge of the defenses of the borrower. That is basic black letter law, in my opinion. And one of the defenses is lack of consideration. either way they either need to show they paid for it — either directly with proof of a wire transfer receipt etc. or by getting a judgment on the note.

THEN they can enforce the judgment. Neither way is non-judicial foreclosure permissible or constitutional.

Thus by their own argument and admissions they are an unsecured creditor with no right to enforce the mortgage because there is no question that they never paid value or consideration for the mortgage, which is the most basic requirement under UCC Article 9.

They may be entitled to the presumption that they can enforce the note. And perhaps the burden of proof shifts to the borrower to rebut the presumption. But remember thepresumption is that the note is evidence of the debt — it is never that the note IS the debt.

If you have challenged the underlying transaction saying that the note refers to a transaction that never took place and therefore the note and the presumption of validity of the the note is rebutted — and if you are able to show the absence of an underlying transaction — simply asking for it and never getting it, then the note is not evidence of a debt and/or the assignment is not evidence of ownership of the mortgage (or deed of trust).

The same holds true for the mortgage. There must be an underlying transaction for the assignment to have any legal effect. There must be a SALE of the note just as there must be a LOAN of money if someone wants to use the note as evidence of the debt.

If there had been a sale of the loan, then they would be asserting the rights of a holder in due course. But they are not asserting that which means they are electing their remedies — they are choosing to sue on the note using the presumption of the validity of the note as evidence of the debt.

Allowing them to enforce an interest in land is bootstrapping the presumption available for the note into a prejudgment seizure of an asset to satisfy a judgment that does not exist. All of this circular reasoning exists because the banks refuse to show the money. They refuse to show it because it doesn’t exist.

Wipe the rebuttable presumption away and they have no case. The banks say that there is no reason for them to show consideration. They say that the presumption about the note ends the discussion. That is NOT why the presumption was created. The presumption was created because in most instances the underlying transaction is undeniably present and proof of it is a waste of time because nobody disputes it. That is precisely why it is a rebuttable presumption as opposed to an irrebuttable presumption.

If they want to sue on the note, let them. That is a judicial procedure. But then they must allege some things they cannot allege in good conscience — like anyone in their chain ever made a loan to the borrower or that anyone in their chain paid any money to purchase the loan. Or if that is swept aside, then they can sue as holder without the right of a holder in due course which means that the borrower can raise any defenses that could have been raised against the originator of the loan. And THAT includes lack of consideration.

About these ads

Filed under: foreclosure

People Who Were Wrong Are the Winners — SO FAR

Posted on May 27, 2014 by Neil Garfield

First of all I don’t think Geithner caused the financial crisis. He certainly contributed to it but it probably would have happened even if he had not undercut Sheila Bair at every opportunity; and yes he should have listened to other people who were saying that the corruption on Wall Street had reached epic proportions.

Second, I think that neither Geithner nor his predecessor, Hank Paulson, as Treasury secretaries, had a real understanding of the crisis at any time up through today. And their bosses, Presidents Bush and Obama were even more clueless. And while they are probably culpable for their negligence and mismanagement of the crisis, the foreclosure madness would have occurred anyway.

Third, it is my belief that the culprits on Wall Street with all their tentacles stretched out across the globe were unstoppable by anyone except a good government with the resources to actually get to the bottom of it. What was missing was the desire to get rid of the problem and the naivete of the leaders in government in failing to notice that the entire banking industry was engaged in faking transactions and documents — and failing to ask why that was necessary.

Fourth my opinion is that the fault lies with the failure of anyone in government to learn anything relevant about the industries they were supposed to be regulating. If they had done so, starting in 1983 when derivatives became adolescent, the adult would have been far more tame and the crises would have been averted entirely.

Homeowners did not create the crisis. Tens of millions of homeowners did not congregate in a room thinking up 450 loan products when there were only 4 or 5. And saying they had bad judgment would absolve almost any perpetrator of economic crime because his victim was too stupid.

The laws were already in place. It was knowledgeable people that were missing. We needed and had faithful servants of the people — but as a society and as a nation each country contributed to the enormous problem that has now been created. And we will keep paying for it as banks take over all commodities we hold dear and “legally” corner the markets with stolen cash and property.

In Nocera’s article on Bankrupt Housing Policy, he points out that ” in the course of perusing another new book about the financial crisis, “Other People’s Houses,” by Jennifer Taub, an associate professor at Vermont Law School, I was reminded of an effort that took place in the spring of 2009 that could have made an enormous difference to homeowners, one that would have required no taxpayer money and might well have become law with a little energetic lobbying from the likes of, well, Tim Geithner. That was an attempt, led by Dick Durbin, the Illinois senator, to change the bankruptcy code so that homeowners who were underwater could modify their mortgages during the bankruptcy process. The moment has been largely forgotten; Taub has done us a favor by putting it back on the table.”

He goes on to say that he had correspondence with Sheila Bair who was undermined and stomped on by the Obama administration for even thinking about relief to homeowners. She was head of the FDIC and prevented from doing her job by a bankrupt policy of save the banks and damn the homeowners. “Because, as Bair told me in an email, “It would have been a powerful bargaining chip for borrowers.” Without the ability to file for bankruptcy, underwater homeowners unable to pay their mortgages were helpless to prevent foreclosures. With it, however, servicers and banks were far more likely to negotiate the debt load. And if they weren’t, a bankruptcy judge would rule on the appropriate debt to be repaid. For all the talk about the need for principal reduction, this change would have been the easiest way to get it.”

According to Adam Levitin, in the same article by Nocera, this should have been a “no-brainer.” I take that too mean that as I have explained above, brains were in short supply during the worst of what we have yet seen of the economic crisis that most of us think is not even half over. Obama may be leaving the crisis as his legacy not because he caused it but because he didn’t do anything about it — or at least anything right.

And I obviously agree with Nocera’s ending comment — “Why is it that the fear of moral hazard only applies to homeowners, and not to the banks?”

Gretchen Morgenson says Geithner admitted he was inept at times. ““We were human.” But this fails to address head-on the possibility that he was a captured regulator, a man locked into the mind-set of the very bankers he was supposed to oversee.”

Gretchen reports without objection from Geithner — “Last week, I asked Sheila C. Bair, the former chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, for her recollection of these events. She replied with an email recalling that in 2006, she attended her first Basel Committee meeting, the international negotiations that Mr. Geithner was referring to. While there, she pushed unsuccessfully to raise bank capital levels.

Why was she unsuccessful? “I was actively undermined by the Fed, the New York Fed and the comptroller of the currency,” she said. “I later complained to Tim about the way his representative on the Basel Committee had undermined me. He was unapologetic.”

Gretchen has not been given the resources to prove the corruption on Wall Street, but she knows it is there and as the fourth estate the NY Times should have provided her with a blank check for what would have been a Pulitzer or even a Nobel prize. for now we can only agree with her — “We were the lenders of last resort and should have been paid an enormous premium for the use of our money. We were not.”

There are suddenly a spate of articles on what went wrong because Geithner wrote a book and is selling it enhancing his own fortunes while he presided over the worst hit the middle class has had in our history.

Here is what investigators should have been looking for:

Behind door number 1 were the fools. These are the money managers who for reasons the defy explanation did no due diligence and bought empty mortgage bonds issued by a trust that was never going to receive the money, the loans or the property.

Behind door number 2 were the wolves of Wall Street including all the different brokers, dealers, banks, rating agencies and insurers, all the mortgage brokers, real estate brokers, and closing agents and title companies all in league to take as much money as they could out of the system and the hide it behind shadow money equivalent to ten times all the actual money in the world.

Behind door number 3 are the victims. These are the people who knew nothing about mortgages, derivatives or anything else. In the end they were convinced by super salespeople that they could never understand how they could afford the loan nor could they even understand why they must do it anyway. In Florida alone 10,000 such sales people were convicted felons. And yet when we talk of moral hazard we speak of people, and not banks. Why is that?

About these ads

Filed under: AMGAR, education, escrow agent, foreclosure, Occupy Movement, Title Tagged: |Barack Obama, George W Bush, GRETCHEN MORGENSON, Hank Paulson, JOE NOCERA, New York Times, Sheila Bair, Timothy F. Geithner

Where Do I Start in Foreclosure Defense?

Posted on May 28, 2014 by Neil Garfield

I recently received a specific request from an attorney in Massachusetts for litigation support there. He was interested, fascinated, but didn’t know where to start. After responding to him I decided to publish my response here for the assistance of others. He was asking for case law, but I redirected him to start with preparing his strategy and narrative.

There are plenty of cases across the country, including Massachusetts. In order to tailor it to your case, we would need to be retained for litigation support. Please speak with my staff about these options. It usually starts with a title and securitization report and then a consultation for an hour and then we offer varying levels of support depending upon what is required. Each state is different not just on the legal analysis but even more on what gets traction in a particular location.

As for the research, you need to know about securitization to know which questions to ask and what points to use as your focus. And discovery is a big part of this, but first you must make sure that in the pleadings you don’t admit the validity of the loan (i.e., the actual cash transaction because it probably came from a third party), the note, the mortgage, the default or the right to enforce. Keep reading my blog and go back in time as far as time permits and read the articles which usually have references to cases and other articles about this tragic misapplication of law and common sense.

You must build your case with a narrative that fits your case. The basic premise here is that the party on the note designated as payee, the party designated as mortgagee (or beneficiary under the deed of trust), the party that was the alleged assignee from the originator, the party who allegedly sold the loan all have one thing in common — no actual transaction that occurred in reality. They neither loaned money to the borrower nor did they buy the loan afterwards. The money that appeared on the closing table came from a third party not in privity with the borrower or the alleged lender at closing.

The foreclosure is simply another step in the theft, conversion or diversion of money, title and legal process to people and entities that perpetrated a huge fraud starting at two points of origination, to wit:

(1) — the sale of bonds to a pension fund or other investor where the money was never turned over to the issuer of the bonds (REMIC trust) and then was applied in ways described as pure fraud by those investors, insurers, counterparties on third party “sales” of the bonds and government agencies and

(2) the sale of mortgage loan products that were highly complex, lacking in required disclosure, violative of the prohibition of table funded loans and other laws against deceptive and predatory lending practices, using funding from an unrelated third party source leaving the investors with no note and no mortgage, and no bond — allowing the investment banks to claim ownership over all of it and leading to the creation of tens of millions of fraudulent, documents fabricated, forged and executed without authority for the sole purpose of getting the system to approve the forced sale of both personal residences and commercial properties where they could say the deal failed and avoid liability to the multiple buyers in multiple disguised sales of the same mortgage — directly or indirectly.

Both originations have this in common: the actual monetary transaction was NOT what is described in the paperwork that was used to lure the investor or homeowner into the transaction. The transaction trail and the monetary trail are the same. But the paper trail matches neither the transaction trail nor the money trail. Your goal is to show that to be the case when it is the case, which appears to be 96% of all loan “transactions” commenced between the years 2001-2009.

By showing that there can be no application of equitable mortgage solutions because no state allows equitable mortgages (it would disrupt the marketplace and undermine title), you proceed to show that the mortgage was never owned by the parties shown by the foreclosing side, and secures a note that does not describe the parties or the terms of repayment to an unrelated third party investor.

This negates enforcement of the mortgage altogether because it attacks the perfection of the mortgage lien as discussed in several cases, and leaves the note open for general litigation enforcement — but as an alleged holder, which is an admission that the party allegedly holding the note has admitted they didn’t buy it, they knew of borrower defenses (including lack of consideration) or both. Either way they cannot win unless they show the money trail (from origination to present day) which in my experience they have NEVER done in thousands of cases I have tracked.

For more information on litigation support, expert witness services and other assistance please call 520-405-1688, or 954-495-9867.

About these ads

Filed under: foreclosure

Do Equitable Mortgages Exist?

Posted on May 29, 2014 by Neil Garfield

Consult with a lawyer licensed in the jurisdiction of the dispute before deciding or acting upon anything on this blog.

I was taken to task for one of my comments by a person who is extremely knowledgeable in the banking industry and with respect to mortgages. He was thrown off by appellate assertions that in certain states and in certain situations assignment of the note is a virtual or “equitable” assignment of the mortgage as well. That is true certainly as between the parties to the sale of the loan — if a sale of the loan occurred.That is my point. If a genuine sale occurred the presumption of enforceability is almost irrefutable. Without the sale of the loan, an assignment is virtually nothing. All you need is a warm body to deflect the spurious assertions of the would-be forecloser.

It is true that endorsement and delivery of the note allows the holder to sue on the note. But it is also true that some appellate courts have gone off the reservation allowing foreclosure (enforcement of the mortgage) even in the absence of a genuine transaction anywhere in the chain of “securitization” . That is not what was intended by commercial transaction law, the UCC or anything else. In some states the presence of facially valid documents may allow for suit to be brought — subject to all possible defenses of the “borrower” including his denial that he is a borrower. “Did you get the money” is used synonymously with “then you owe the debt” with horse blinders on the question of to whom the debt is owed.

One lawyer in New York seemed to have gotten the Judge’s attention when he asked the Judge who was his cellphone carrier. The Judge said it was AT&T. And then the lawyer said, so what would you say to Sprint if they came in and demanded payment? You would say that as to Sprint, you are NOT a cell phone customer just as you are NOT a borrower in relation to someone who has neither loaned you money nor spent money purchasing your debt.

Starting with a fraudulent transaction and allowing it to be compounded by wrongful foreclosure is clearly not what any legislature, any court precedent, or any government policy was intent on doing.

Equitable mortgages do not exist in the law, per se. But there are numerous cases in which the idea was used to justify the result sought by the Court as the “proper” result.

And while if you push it there is no such thing as an equitable mortgage, there are particular circumstances under which it will be regarded as such — namely between a limited number of parties as litigants in the same lawsuit rather than “notice to the world” with nobody else on the horizon making a claim. In other words for purposes of a specific case and specific parties the mortgage is deemed effective — much as one might do when they enter into an IT agreement and they agree to treat the idea or business plan as patented in favor of one of the parties even though no application was made.

Thus spawns the idea that equitable mortgages are permissible. They are not. Equitable assignments operate in much the same way. They cannot operate against the world, but they can operate against specific parties because the circumstances are deemed to demand it. The error in the courts is that are skipping a step and lured into doing so by skillful avoidance of the distinction between a holder, a holder with rights to enforce and a holder in due course.

To that extent, appellate courts who have either fallen into that trap or been trapped by the lack of proper presentation by the borrower, have nonetheless committed a grievous error based upon the assumptions that there PROBABLY WAS A REAL TRANSACTION INVOLVING THESE PARTIES OR SOMEONE IN THEIR CHAIN. MY POINT IS THAT IN MOST INSTANCES NO SUCH TRANSACTION EXISTS AND FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AND BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEYS SHOULD STOP ADMITTING ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE UNTRUE AND UNSUPPORTABLE.

If an attorney doesn’t understand securitization, fact and fiction, then he or she should neither render an opinion nor act on it.

So the analysis comes down to the fact that there are no equitable mortgages, and there are no equitable assignments of mortgage — or else public records don’t mean anything — and then the entire marketplace would be uncertain as to title to virtually anything where a loan was collateralized. BUT a party can show that the instrument should nonetheless be enforced against a specific party whether properly executed, properly recorded or not using parol evidence, circumstantial evidence etc. to arrive at the truth. Just because it wasn’t in writing, unless the statute of frauds applies, doesn’t mean you don’t have a duty to perform under an oral contract. And if the writing was wrong and it is obvious from the facts presented by the parties that the writing was incorrectly drafted, then it is the SUBSTANCE that counts, not what is in writing.

To be specific, imagine that in an ordinary loan, the bank forgot to record the mortgage. Without some third party interposing a claim of superiority over the bank, the bank can nonetheless enforce the mortgage. If there were mistakes made, then the bank could simply ask for reformation of the contract and then foreclosure.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF (PERSUASION) IS ON THE BANK NOT THE BORROWER: In order to do ANY of the things described above the bank would be required to show the real transaction and the real facts and the real money trail — unless the “borrower” failed to deny the allegations and object to anything but best evidence, non-hearsay, credible testimony and real business records presented by someone with complete access to all the records relating to this particular loan.

For more assistance please call 520-405-1688 or 954-494-6000 and remember to ask about our AMGAR program.

About these ads

Filed under: foreclosure

« Hear the Neil Garfield Show on The Greatest Economic Crime in Human History People Who Were Wrong Are the Winners — SO FAR »

18 Responses

timothymccandless, on May 28, 2014 at 9:04 pm said:

Reblogged this on Serving California only 909-890-9192.
Nancy Hahn, on May 28, 2014 at 10:53 am said:

Hi Neil.

Is this information LEGAL IN STATE OF California.

Please respond.

Thank you.

N. Hahn
Deborah wynn, on May 27, 2014 at 11:32 am said:

Elexquisitor
Yep.
Kudos and best of luck.
Nancy Hahn, on May 27, 2014 at 1:36 am said:

Hi Neal.

Douse this APLY TO California.

Thank you.

Respectfully.

Nancy Hahn
Ray Shelton, on May 27, 2014 at 12:59 am said:

Ray Shelton May 19, 2014 at 7:49 pm
If you are being foreclosed on By US Bank and or SN Servicing ( Please No Other banks or services please) Please check the signatures on your deed in your county clerks office, if you are sure that forgery or falsification of your documents has taken place then call me ASAP we are going after anyone who has wrong us by forgery and or uttering forgery under the RICO ACT. This is happening now 2014 Please join us. call 352 274 8467 Ray Shelton
#1. Did A Serious Crime of forgery and Uttering forgery take place by US Bank and their attorneys against you ?
#2. The OCCs Cease and desist order signed by US Bank and its Board of directors specifically says that US Bank and its third parties ( Servicer’s and attorneys) will stop this kind of criminal activity immediately and make restitution, but they have only escalated their activities of illegally taking homes in Florida via Forgery and falsifying documents etc.:

MEDIA STORY LINE. A Well known highly respected Florida Notary and his wife who witness the signing of a deed and mortgage have come forward and signed a statement sworn under oath that the signatures on a deed and mortgage were originally signed in Royal Blue. They even went to the Marion County Clerk of the Court and had another notary witness the fact that they viewed the recorded deed and mortgage that was submitted by US Bank and then witnessed that the documents were not sign in Royal Blue. But in fact were signed in Black. It is clear by any reasonable person or most important by Law Enforcement and our Judges, that after US Bank claimed a lost note status for a couple of years, they had no choice but to forge the deed and note in order to have standing in court.
The Shelton family is being illegally foreclosed on by US Bank who has already paid out multi million dollar fines, but no one has gone to jail. Who is actually committing these crimes? Was it DocX or LPS or is it their attorneys? This needs to be discovered and prosecuted by the Feds because it is a very serious issue that is costing the American public billions of dollars in loses. It apparently doesn’t matter to US bank that the homeowner is right or wrong because no normal family can stand up to the money that is used to win by attrition against a homeowner. Who will protect the public and stop the destruction of hundred of thousands of families lives all across this nation?
This is also very wrong because Us Bank and their attorneys may be undermining the integrity of our entire Justice system and the American way of life as it is known today. Will it end up that it is ok to forge our most treasured document without any prosecution by our government? This is becoming a crime wave that is unparalleled in history and America must stop it. Have Multiple interstate crimes been committed multiple times By US Bank and their attorneys ? Should these issues be considered within the Rico Crimes Laws. US Bank has not stopped their behavior, are the fines way to low and they just don’t care because the numbers prove that they can still make huge profits by continuing on the same path? Where is Law Enforcement? Where is Eric Holder? Where is OBAMA???
The Shelton Family didn’t discover the facts about the forgeries until they had already lost in every court even the appeals court. Now that they found out and have proof of forgery shouldn’t all the other ruling be null and void? The Shelton’s are filing a Civil Criminal Lawsuit against the attorneys Andrew Braaksma and Paul McKenna and another Civil Rico law suite against US Bank and SN servicing.
The Shelton’s have filed a bar complaint with the Florida bar against Andrew Braaksma out of Miami and his partner Paul Mckenna for Uttering Forgery and other reasons to be announced. They have also filed a complaint with the FBI and with the Florida Attorney General. They will soon ask the Office of State wide prosecution to take the case. There will also be some press conferences set up to expose the Miami Attorneys and US Bank. Shouldn’t this case be moved up to the Federal courts and demand relief and for the prosecution of the Miami Attorneys and US Bank? To join us please call 352 274 8467 Ray Shelton
Charles Reed, on May 27, 2014 at 12:37 am said:

If a party is bringing an action about a Contract/Note and they are not a party to that Note, and are not listed on the face of the document that it a action the court cannot address with the non interested party.

The matters are coming to an end because the obvious is being seen for what it is. Ginnie Mae a larger Federal owned corporation is not now asking to see the titles, if a suspected problem at least has been bought up.

I believe the VA hospital situation allows a fall guy in Shinseki who the Secretary of VA and the hospital like the VA HAMP was lender wide. So on Shinseki way out the door he gets a double dose on stupid!
elexquisitor, on May 26, 2014 at 11:21 pm said:

@dw – Neil is trying to explain presumption – what happens if facts are missing. Presumptions are applied as a matter of law with respect where you are in the legal action. It’s the chess game in a legal battle.

In a summary judgment motion the party bringing the motion has the presumption of proof against them, initially. If they can show uncontested facts that support their position in the action, then the presumption switches and the opposer to the motion has to set forth uncontested facts to support their position. This is why summary judgment is a normal part of foreclosure litigation – because it may pull evidence from the defending party that was being held in reserve for trial.

In issues of agency, the presumption is against the party claiming it, so they have to evidence their claim with documents or affidavits. When requesting production of evidence in CA there is a limit on how many requests you can make, but a set of default requests common to most actions is available, called a form interrogatory. One of the standard questions is to state any agency relationships with any of the parties in the action. A party claiming agency in an appeal would include the request and their answer to that form interrogatory, as is it signed under penalty of perjury and unless objected to, admissable and noticeable to an appellate court. A party like myself, intent on defeating the claim of agency, points out to the appellate court the absence of a form interrogatory response by the party claiming agency (or any other document for that matter), and the presumption against agency should prevail in a lawful court. And if the party opposing the summary judgment is opposing the agency, then there are 2 presumptions a justice bent on contorting he law would have to contend with.

IANAL (I am not a lawyer). The above is a pile of horse manure. But hey! Every once in a while a pony pops out!
Charles Reed, on May 26, 2014 at 11:03 pm said:

I believe that they were trying to hide the fact of the assignment and is why all the transfers to Ocwen. However I believe that Ginnie Mae back out of this scheme, because they been had at some level and is why they stop the rest of the transfers and is asking to have the servicers show them the title.

It the only cover Ginnie Mae has got at this time and that is to fully blame it on the banks! Just think how has servicing gotten to be so unprofitable that the bank are shifting all these billions in loans and somehow Ocwen can do all these billion of loan servicing cheaper?

They cannot, and this play was to be able to destroy the records so that they can get around UCC9!
esther9, on May 26, 2014 at 10:07 pm said:

Ocwen Financial (OCN) Unit Completes ResCap Asset Acquisitions

February 19, 2013 8:56 AM EST

On February 15, 2013, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Ocwen Financial Corporation (NYSE: OCN), completed the acquisition of certain Purchased Assets (as described below) pursuant to an asset purchase agreement (the “Asset Purchase Agreement”) with Residential Capital, LLC, Residential Funding Company, LLC, GMAC Mortgage, LLC, Executive Trustee Services, LLC, ETS of Washington, Inc., EPRE LLC and the additional Sellers identified on Schedule A thereto (collectively, the “Sellers”) in connection with the Sellers’ proposed asset sale pursuant to a plan under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”). Each of the Sellers is an indirect subsidiary of Ally Financial Inc.

Pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement, Ocwen purchased approximately $49.6 billion in “private label” mortgage servicing rights (“MSRs”), $19.2 billion in Freddie Mac MSRs, $38.5 billion in Ginnie Mae MSRs, $42.1 billion in master servicing MSRs, $25.9 billion in subservicing contracts, $1.5 billion of related servicing advance receivables, and related elements of the servicing platform for these MSRs and advances (collectively, the “Purchased Assets”), in each case as measured by unpaid principal balances as of December 31, 2012. The aggregate purchase price for Purchased Assets, net of adjustments for assumed liabilities, was approximately $2.1 billion, subject to post-closing adjustments for the unpaid principal balance of the related Purchased Assets as of the date of closing and other customary post-closing adjustments. In addition, until certain consents and court approvals are obtained, Ocwen will subservice approximately $9 billion in “private label” MSRs previously serviced by the Sellers. When such consents and approvals are obtained, Ocwen will purchase those MSRs as well.

The transactions described in the previous two paragraphs are referred to herein as the “Transaction.”

Ocwen deployed approximately $840 million of net additional capital, all in the form of additional term debt described in greater detail in item 2.03 below. To finance the acquisition of the servicing advance receivables, Ocwen borrowed approximately $1.25 billion pursuant to three servicing advance facilities with Barclays Bank PLC, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Bank of America, N.A.

The foregoing summary of the Asset Purchase Agreement is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Asset Purchase Agreement, which was filed with the Registrant’s November 8, 2012 Current Report on Form 8-K as Exhibit 2.1 and incorporated herein by reference
Deborah wynn, on May 26, 2014 at 9:55 pm said:

And if the record is incomplete how can justice be done

Not an attorney not legal advice just common sense.
Deborah wynn, on May 26, 2014 at 9:54 pm said:

elexquisitor
How on earth can you complete the record – it’s unavoidably incomplete because discovery was blocked by the sounds.
Deborah wynn, on May 26, 2014 at 9:44 pm said:

I feel like we are back peddling only to go full circle again.
Needless to say each case has taken its path and honestly I think it might take a long time to put them behind bars but the nazis eventually were tried and convicted for their crimes against humanity – nice gift fior out grand kids but not so much theirs.
Deborah wynn, on May 26, 2014 at 9:27 pm said:

Well Charles
Erica Johsen Seck ( well known Robo signer acts in various capacities to have ” personal knowledge for deutsche, HSBC, one west indymac and so on – god knows when that women sleeps or how) she should follow Linda Green because it’s same thing exact- assigned as ” attorney in fact” for ” HSBC” recorded several years after trust closed plus my loan was unqualified ( past cut off date under New York trust Law) and after indymac went into receivership – technically how she got laid, whoops I mean paid, working for a defunct company ?? Guess she missed that. Anyone got that deposition from her???
elexquisitor, on May 26, 2014 at 9:14 pm said:

In my CA case I had to request a statement of decision from the trial judge to make my point that there were no common business records produced as a result of discovery requests to substantiate any negotiation occurred among the identified parties. My request was ignored, so it will be interesting to see what contortions the Appellate court will go through to ‘justify’ the absence of any facts that substantiate FNMA’s and JPM’s claims.
Charles Reed, on May 26, 2014 at 8:08 pm said:

javagold they uses robo as a catch all phase because in Wells’s release, it said the personnel approved legal document without proper review. The robo signing caught the name after 60 Minute reported on the masses robo signing DocX as one employee explained that he signed 4,000 phony assignment with Linda Green name on them!

Yes there were document that notaries were simply signing but these were secondary documents and not assignment in most cases!
Javagold, on May 26, 2014 at 6:38 pm said:

Assignments Were robo signed and post dated ( and incorrect date order, as the morons couldn’t even do it correct after the fact!!!) ….it was of course bought to courts attention HOWEVER, the house was still stolen at fraudclosed sheriff sale. ….
Charles Reed, on May 26, 2014 at 6:13 pm said:

2yrs ago did I not talk about UCC3 & UCC9 and in fact I got this turned in to the SEC as a Whistleblower claim? Did you see that Wells Fargo settled a Robo claim on Friday for $67 billion from shareholder complaint!

What they are doing is trying to not have this as a securities situation when in fact these loans are in securities, an with the 4% foreclosure rate of FHA & VA loan and Wells Fargo handling 1.3 million of Washington Mutual loan that 104,000 loan for 2009-2010 that were illegally foreclosed with Forgeries!
hammertime, on May 26, 2014 at 6:03 pm said:

Do the settlement terms establish there needs to be a valid transaction as well?

p 100/A-6 of Consent_Judgmen_Chase-4-11-12.pdf

Under C. Documentation of Note, Holder Status and Chain of Assignment.

6. Servicer shall ensure that mortgage assignments executed by or on
behalf of Servicer are executed with appropriate legal authority,
accurately reflective of the completed transaction and properly
acknowledged.

It seems lawyers, officials etc aren’t bothering to read the settlement terms.