Dec
02

Notes Never Made It To the Trusts – BIG Problem for the BIG Banks

Editors Comment
Lane Houk
12/2/2010

The article below published on Bloomberg.com a few days ago is focused on the root of a really big problem for the banks. The greed of the big banks is going to ultimately lead to their demise. I mean this seriously, not figuratively. They are going to be consumed by their greed – and their sloppy arrogance.

The big banks own all the major servicers. They are subsidiaries of the banks or the bank holding companies.

The big banks own a number of the major loan originators. They are subsidiaries of the banks or bank holding companies.

The big banks own or operate a number of the largest investment banks and trustee divisions. They are subsidiaries of the banks or bank holding companies.

The players in the Mortgage Backed Securities world are largely controlled by the big banks. A loan/note when being securitized is supposed to pass through several conveyances on its way to being converted to a security. These transactions were supposed to be true purchase and sales from one entity to the next. The Pooling, Trust and/or Servicing Agreeement(s) spell this out in crystal clarity.

The big banks failed to follow their own agreements. The investors that got screwed years ago when big banks were selling shit to them might not get so screwed after all if they all get together and sue shit out of big banks.

Homeowners should find a plethora of ways to use these issues to reveal major issues of fact in their case. Clear title is a huge problem on millions of already foreclosed homes. Some title insurers already changing policies and not writing title insurance on a foreclosed home.

News Flash: Big Banks Swallowed by Their Own Greed – Coming Soon to a city near you… Also coming to every American Citizen… Government-Run or Government-Backed Title Insurance. Mark my words… it’s coming.

BofA Mortgage Morass Deepens After Employee Says Notes Not Sent

By Prashant Gopal and Jody Shenn – Nov 30, 2010

Testimony by a Bank of America Corp. employee in a New Jersey personal bankruptcy case may give more ammunition to homeowners and investors in their legal battles over defaulted mortgages.

Linda DeMartini, a team leader in the company’s mortgage- litigation management division, said during a U.S. Bankruptcy Court hearing in Camden last year that it was routine for the lender to keep mortgage promissory notes even after loans were bundled by the thousands into bonds and sold to investors, according to a transcript. Contracts for such securitizations usually require the documents to be transferred to the trustee for mortgage bondholders.

In the case, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith H. Wizmur on Nov. 16 rejected a claim on the home of John T. Kemp, ruling his mortgage company, now owned by Bank of America, had failed to deliver the note to the trustee. That could leave the trustee with no standing to take the property, and raises the question of whether other foreclosures could similarly be blocked.

Following the decision, the bank disavowed the statements by DeMartini, whom it had flown in from California to testify. It was the policy of Countrywide Financial Corp., acquired by Bank of America in July 2008, to deliver notes as called for in its securitization contracts, according to Larry Platt, an attorney at K&L Gates LLP in Washington designated by the bank to answer questions about the case.

“This particular employee was mistaken in what she said,” Platt said in a telephone interview.

Attorney Analysis

Wizmur’s ruling is being scrutinized by lawyers for borrowers seeking to stall repossessions as a way to press lenders to modify their debt. Attorneys for homeowners have already won cases by calling into doubt the legitimacy of affidavits used to take back properties.

“If this is correct, many, many, many foreclosures already occurred in which this plaintiff didn’t have the note,” said Bruce Levitt, the South Orange, New Jersey, attorney representing Kemp. “This could affect thousands or hundreds of thousands of loans.”

Companies that service loans, including Bank of America, temporarily halted home seizures in the wake of disclosures that they relied on employees to sign thousands of affidavits without reading them, a practice that has become known as robo-signing. The attorneys general of all 50 states are jointly investigating foreclosure practices of servicers.

Bank of America, based in Charlotte, North Carolina, is the largest U.S. mortgage servicer, overseeing $2.09 trillion of loans as of Sept. 30, according to industry newsletter Inside Mortgage Finance.

Investor Impact

The Kemp case is also being examined by lawyers for investors in mortgage-backed securities. Owners of the bonds have been cooperating in an effort to force sellers to take back loans, saying they were misled about their quality. The Wizmur ruling may give investors an additional opportunity to push for mortgage buybacks on grounds that the bonds weren’t created in keeping with securitization contracts.

“It may mean investors who think they bought mortgage- backed securities bought securities that aren’t backed by anything,” said Kurt Eggert, a professor at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, California.

The potential impact of DeMartini’s testimony may depend on the outcome of a broader dispute between homeowner and industry lawyers about whether missing or incomplete paperwork subsequently can be fixed, Eggert said.

‘Not Customary’

Wizmur, chief judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, said during hearings that the Countrywide securitization contract covering Kemp’s loan called for a trustee to take possession of the promissory notes, which represent the borrowers’ obligation to repay their loans.

The judge asked DeMartini whether the notes ever move to follow the transfer of ownership, according to the transcript of the August 2009 hearing.

“I can’t say that they’re never moved because, I mean, with this many millions of loans as we have I wouldn’t presume to say that, but it is not customary for them to move,” DeMartini said.

“This is something that would concern investors,” said Talcott Franklin, a Dallas-based lawyer whose firm is helping owners of more than $600 billion of mortgage bonds as they consider ways to limit their losses.

DeMartini held management and training positions since joining Countrywide Home Loans about a decade ago, according to her testimony. She said she has been involved in every aspect of servicing and “had to know about everything in order to do that.”

Beyond DeMartini’s Knowledge

Platt, the lawyer for Bank of America, said DeMartini was wrong, as was the bank’s local attorney in the case, who argued in court that notes weren’t moved in part because of the risk of losing them. The transfer of mortgage notes was outside the scope of DeMartini’s knowledge because she doesn’t deal with the sale of loans, Platt said.

DeMartini, who at one point said she wasn’t “comfortable” testifying about the extent to which notes were transferred before continuing to do so, couldn’t be reached for comment. Jerry Dubrowski, a spokesman for the bank, said that she remains an employee.

Banks including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Washington Mutual Inc. said in prospectuses for some mortgage-bond deals that they would hold onto notes for the trusts. They were empowered to act in custodial roles on behalf of trustees, according to the pooling and servicing agreements that govern the transactions.

Countrywide Deals

The securitization contracts related to the Kemp loan, and at least two other Countrywide mortgage-bond transactions, didn’t assign the company the additional role of document custodian for the trust. Countrywide, as the servicer, can take back the notes from the trustee when needed to manage foreclosure actions and mortgage payoffs, according to the contracts.

One risk to investors when notes remain with sellers acting as custodian is that an acquirer or creditor of those companies could walk in and take the notes, the banks that disclosed the practice in mortgage-bond prospectuses warned. Typically, trustees or custodians also are charged with checking that either all the necessary documents get delivered or letting sellers know about missing paperwork.

“If Countrywide had a special agreement to act as a stand- in for the trustee, given the inherent conflicts involved, one would have thought that would have been material and disclosed to investors,” said Joshua Rosner, an analyst at New York-based Graham Fisher & Co.

He said that the possibility that Countrywide retained documents raises questions about whether Bank of New York Mellon Corp., which serves as the trustee for the securitization of the Kemp loan, fulfilled its obligation to review loan files.

Stress-Tested System

“We have an established, clearly defined document review process,” said Kevin Heine, a spokesman for New York-based BNY Mellon. “It is a controlled and well-documented system that has been stress-tested and audited. We are comfortable that it works well.”

Heine declined to comment on the Kemp case or Countrywide’s policies.

Mortgage-bond contracts require that loan sellers deliver certain files to trustees, or other companies acting on their behalf, typically within a few months. “Material” missing paperwork can require sellers to take back loans for their full face value, according to the agreements.

“If the notes weren’t properly transferred to the trusts, then investors have the mother of all put-back claims,” Adam J. Levitin, an associate professor at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, wrote on a blog four days after citing the Wizmur ruling during a hearing by a House Financial Services subcommittee.

Trust Law

Giving notes to the trustees after the fact isn’t a solution because the rules governing trusts, enforced by New York trust law, require that assets are in place by a specified closing date, said O. Max Gardner III, a Shelby, North Carolina, bankruptcy litigator. The notes also can’t be transferred to the trust without first being conveyed through a chain of interim entities, he said.

“If they do an end run and directly deliver it to the trust, that would violate all the documents they filed with the SEC under oath as to what they did,” Gardner said.

Industry lawyers said trust law isn’t relevant in this instance. Based on other legal codes, loans have already been transferred into the mortgage-bond trusts, making a clean-up of paperwork permissible, they said.

Refuted Attack Strategies

“Those who seek to attack the integrity of securitizations have taken a number of approaches that have been refuted, so now they’re focusing on New York trust law,” said Karen B. Gelernt, a lawyer in New York at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP who works for banks.

The part of the law they cite relates to “actions taken by the trustee after the trust is formed; it’s nonsensical to apply this provision to the creation of the trust,” she said. “There doesn’t appear to be any case law that supports their interpretation.”

Platt, the Bank of America lawyer, said that any bank that failed to initially deliver all the documents required in contracts may be required to refund investors only in cases in which foreclosures actually get blocked.

“The judges may decide it’s better for the system to allow everyone to” send missing paperwork to trustees, said Rosner, the Graham Fisher analyst. “It’s too early to really answer question about the implications” if the Bank of America testimony is true.

The case is In the Matter of John T. Kemp, Kemp v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc., 08-02448, U.S. bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden).

To contact the reporters on this story: Prashant Gopal in New York at pgopal2@bloomberg.net; Jody Shenn in New York at jshenn@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Kara Wetzel at kwetzel@bloomberg.net; Alan Goldstein at agoldstein5@bloomberg.net

Jan
14

Bank of America to get Billions in US Aid

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

 

Everyday, I read the headlines and half of me can’t believe what’s happening… and it keeps happening; the other half completely believes this madness. Our government officials are out of control. They’ve lost it… I mean completely lost their marbles but we’re to blame because we’ve elected these looney tunes to office and we continue to do so. The average American is being fleeced. We are going to get taxed beyond comprehension. Mark my words. It’s coming. It will come in all sorts of nasty realities. We’re on the hook for $700 Billion. $350 Billion has just been slammed through the system. Gone. And what do we have as a result? More foreclosures, more write-downs, more people losing their homes, their jobs.

And today, I get the word… us taxpayers are going to fund some more acquisitions. The M&A Departments are singing all the way to the bank – oh, excuse me, they are the bank… Bank of America was going to buy Merrill Lynch BUT they got cold feet. The bank, already the recipient of $25 billion in committed federal rescue funds, said that it was unlikely to complete its Jan. 1 purchase of the ailing Wall Street securities firm because of Merrill’s larger-than-expected losses in the fourth quarter, according to a person familiar with the talks.

So our good friend and consumer advocate, Hank Paulson, is coming to the rescue. “We can’t let this happen! Bank of America needs more! $25 Billion isn’t enough. The US economy will crash if Merrill Lynch fails and B of A doesn’t complete this M&A! Get ‘em more… get ‘em more!”

Since when did it become OK for the US taxpayer to fund a private company’s buyout of another private company? Excuse me? I don’t give you permission to use my tax dollar to do this! I sure hope someone out there has something to say about this. Write your US Senator… Write your Congressman/woman… Let them all know that they are going to  lose their seat if they continue to back this craziness. We’ve got to send strong messages. We’ve got to get out of our comfort zones of being too busy to get involved and start the barrage of emails and phone calls. Folks, this is the only way. It’s going to take a concerted effort from the masses. YOU have to do your part and hold your friends, family, neighbors and co-workers accountable to the same.

For more on the latest B of A news… read this article from the Wall Street Journal.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009
WASHINGTON — The U.S. government is close to finalizing a deal that would give billions in additional aid to Bank of America Corp. to help it close its acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co., according to people familiar with the situation.

Discussions over these funds began in mid-December when Bank of America approached the Treasury Department. The bank, already the recipient of $25 billion in committed federal rescue funds, said that it was unlikely to complete its Jan. 1 purchase of the ailing Wall Street securities firm because of Merrill’s larger-than-expected losses in the fourth quarter, according to a person familiar with the talks.

Treasury, concerned the deal’s failure could affect the stability of U.S. financial markets, agreed to work with the Charlotte, N.C., lender on the “formulation of a plan” that includes new capital from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, according to the person familiar with the talks. The amount and terms are still being finalized, this person said. Details are expected to be announced with Bank of America’s fourth-quarter earnings, due out Tuesday.

Any possible arrangement might protect Bank of America from losses on Merrill’s bad assets. There would be a cap on the amount of losses the bank would have to absorb, with the federal government being on the hook for the remainder, said one person familiar with the matter.

Both the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., alongside the Treasury, are involved in the negotiations, say people familiar with them. That suggests that the aid could take a similar form to the hand extended to Citigroup Inc. late last year.

The commitment of funds is further evidence of the banking system’s delicate condition and its hunger for more capital, despite billions of dollars already invested in financial institutions by the government. So far, the U.S. has already injected $25 billion into Bank of America, which includes $10 billion that Merrill Lynch would have received if the sale to Bank of America had not closed.

The talks with Bank of America were driven by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, people familiar with the matter said, because he was concerned that without help the deal wouldn’t close, leaving Merrill adrift. When the merger closed at the beginning of this year, it was with the understanding the two sides would hammer out a plan afterwards, said a person familiar with the talks.

The Treasury has committed the entire first half of its TARP funds, although some of it remains unspent. Earlier this week, President George W. Bush formally notified Congress that he was seeking access to the second half of the funds on behalf of President-elect Barack Obama. Congress has yet to release the money.

One person familiar with the matter said Bank of America would receive TARP funds, making use of the difference between the money committed and spent. In essence, as it did with aid to Detroit, the Bush administration is spending funds not yet approved by Congress that would otherwise go to an Obama Treasury.

Lawmakers, who are widely unhappy with how the TARP program has been run, have spent the week discussing what kinds of new conditions they would like to impose on recipients of funds in the second tranche. They would like to see more spending on aid for homeowners. Obama officials have expressed their desire to gain access to the additional funds quickly. A key vote in the Senate could come Thursday or Friday.

Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke said Tuesday that he’d like to see much of the second half spent to support the financial system, where continuing weakness is causing alarm among policymakers.

In the end, investors and financial institutions could face as much as $2 trillion of losses from bad U.S. loans and bonds, far more than anybody thought even a few months ago. A sustained recovery for markets and the economy is unlikely until the hole is filled. Bank stocks are falling sharply as investors come to grips with the worsening outlook for loan losses.

Analysts at Goldman Sachs were the latest to raise estimates of potential U.S. loan losses. In a report released late Tuesday night, Goldman economists estimated that losses from delinquent U.S. residential mortgages alone would hit $1.1 trillion as home prices sink, up from an earlier estimate of $780 billion.

Add in losses from commercial real estate, credit cards, auto debt and business debt, and Goldman’s loan-loss estimate hits $2.1 trillion. Only half of those losses have yet been recognized. Many will be borne by investors and banks overseas. The estimate doesn’t count losses that U.S. institutions will take on bad overseas loans that they hold.

Bank of America is expected by some analysts to report a loss for the fourth quarter, or at least a smaller profit than expected. It is not known exactly how much Merrill lost in the same time period. Merrill’s problems largely stem from the deterioration of assets on its books and trading losses, said a person familiar with the matter.

Bank of America’s heft and diversity helped buffer it through the early stages of this financial crisis. But the U.S. bank is now broadly exposed to the nation’s economic ills. With its recent acquisitions of troubled California mortgage lender Countrywide Financial Corp. and Merrill, the bank is now a major player in every corner of the battered U.S. financial system. It has its hand in credit cards, home mortgages, underwriting, merger advice and wealth management, all areas that are under stress during one of the deepest recessions since World War II.

The deal between Bank of America and Merrill was forged during the hectic weekend last September that saw Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. collapse and giant insurer American International Group Inc. start to unravel. Merrill Chief Executive John Thain, worried his firm would be next, pressed for a quick deal.

In the aftermath of Bank of America’s acquisition of Merrill — valued at $50 billion when it was announced and worth $19.36 billion when it closed — its chief executive, Kenneth D. Lewis, was viewed as a savior of the financial-services industry, having rescued both Merrill and Countrywide without government assistance. Mr. Lewis had also argued that Bank of America didn’t need the first round of federal rescue funds that the Treasury offered last fall.

“These were funds we did not need and did not seek,” Mr. Lewis told employees late in 2008.

The request for additional funds may feed criticism that Mr. Lewis overreached during a time of crisis to expand his operation. Mr. Lewis “has hit a stumbling block here — the economy,” said Nancy Bush, a banking analyst with NAB Research LLC in Annandale, N.J. “I think he will have to stop doing deals.”

Analysts, worried about rising unemployment and a pullback by U.S. consumers, have been slashing Bank of America’s estimates for the fourth quarter. Some are predicting a loss and arguing that Bank of America will be forced to cut its dividend once again as a way of shoring up capital.

Jeffrey Harte of Sandler O’Neill & Partners revised his fourth-quarter forecast this week to a loss, citing capital-markets losses and rising credit costs. He predicted $2.3 billion in write-downs associated with collateralized debt obligations and subprime-mortgage-backed securities. Citigroup Inc. analyst Keith Horowitz said the bank might record a $3.6 billion fourth-quarter loss.

Bank of America is also reeling from two high-level Merrill departures within a week and concerns about cultural tensions between the two firms.

Mr. Lewis has already recommended his board not award top executives bonuses for 2008, warning that performance would be below expectations. Having received billions in federal aid, he faces pressure to show the bank is grappling with its problems — beyond the 30,000 to 35,000 job cuts it has already announced — and is making significant contributions to a U.S. recovery.

To that end, the bank intends to break out new loan originations made during the fourth quarter, a first-time disclosure it hopes will mitigate concerns about new lending.

Jan
11

TARP Oversight Panel Urges Transparency, Accountability

Alright, so we’re talking about the largest appropriation of taxpayer dollars (and/or printed money) in US history here. $700 billion! And we even have to “urge” transparency and accountability? I’d like to say, “I can’t believe it” but unfortunately I can. Folks, this is what this blog is all about. We have the most irresponsible, flippant and crooked government and Congress that I have ever seen and probably in our nation’s history.

These collective officials have the gall to spend $350 billion of our tax dollars without demanding strict accountability. The committee they selected to be this “watchdog” has to come out and say “hey, we’re here to do this and you’re not letting us hold you accountable and you’re not being transparent about where this money is going.” Unreal… If only it was truly not real. Read the story below from the Wall Street Journal.

TARP Oversight Panel Urges Transparency and Accountability

WASHINGTON — U.S. lawmakers should demand more accountability from the government’s $700 billion financial rescue package before releasing the second half of the funds, the head of the program’s watchdog panel said Friday.

Elizabeth Warren, who chairs an oversight committee set up by Congress to oversee the bailout, seen during a December interview.

Elizabeth Warren, who chairs an oversight committee set up by Congress to oversee TARP, photographed during a December interview.

“We would urge Congress to consider the accountability and transparency questions, the question of whether money is going to be used for foreclosures, and the overall strategy issues as part of any additional requests made for more money,” said Harvard Law School Professor Elizabeth Warren, who chairs a bipartisan panel charged with overseeing the Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The Obama administration is already looking at a broad revamp of the program, which has faced criticism from Democrats and Republicans over its implementation. Obama’s team is expected to launch a major program to prevent foreclosures. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) said he is working with the Obama administration to try and come up with restrictions on how the second installment of the fund is used, including aid to cities.

Ms. Warren said she was “very pleased that the incoming administration is focused on these issues.”

The Obama’s administration will likely work closely with congressional leaders before asking for the rest of the TARP money, as Congress can pass a resolution disapproving of any request. President-elect Barack Obama could veto any disapproval resolution, but that could prove politically risky and unsettling to markets.

The new report by Ms. Warren’s panel, the second released since Congress created TARP in October, illustrates the controversial nature of the program. She said Treasury has still not adequately explained how it is selecting banks for its $250 billion program to inject capital directly into the financial system.

“The panel’s initial concerns about the TARP have only grown, exacerbated by the shifting explanations of its purposes and the tools used by Treasury,” the report said. It said Treasury had “not yet explained its strategy” for stabilizing the financial markets.

The report said long and short-term credit spreads suggest Treasury has effectively forestalled a financial collapse by injecting billions of dollars into the financial system. Still, the panel suggested that the efforts have “not affected liquidity in credit markets or reassured the capital markets that large financial institutions are strong credits.”

“Although half the money has not yet been received by the banks, hundreds of billions of dollars have been injected into the marketplace with no demonstrable effects on lending,” the document goes on to say.

Neel Kashkari gives an update on the TARP program in Washington on Thursday.

The report faulted Treasury on a variety of fronts, saying it has: no ability to ensure banks lend the money they’ve received from the government; no standards for measuring the success of the program; and that it ignored or offered incomplete answers to panel questions.

These shortcomings, the report suggests, could undermine the goal of various programs. “For Treasury to advance funds to these institutions without requiring more transparency further erodes the very confidence Treasury seeks to restore,” the report said.

The bipartisan panel reserved its most strident criticism for Treasury’s approach to dealing with the foreclosure crisis at the root of the ongoing economic turmoil.

“The bailout money doesn’t require a specific approach,” Ms. Warren said. “It entrusts Treasury with developing an approach, and that’s what Treasury should be doing.”

Treasury officials debated whether to use part of the TARP program to prevent foreclosures but ultimately decided against it, worried about any program’s effectiveness and the possibility it would discriminate against homeowners who’ve been struggling to make their mortgage payments.

They have instead relied on industry-led efforts by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and others to voluntarily modify troubled loans into more affordable products.

Additionally, the report faulted Treasury for not explaining why it declined to force all TARP recipients to adopt a Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. mortgage loan modification plan. Citigroup Inc. had to agree to use the program to streamline loan changes as part of its help from the government in November.

“Treasury’s refusal to answer this question is one of the most troubling aspects of their letter,” the report said of the Dec. 30 letter sent by Treasury to the panel in response to submitted questions. 

Jan
10

Banks, Bailout and Billions – The ins & outs of "Securitization"

 

Ok, so let’s break this down a bit because the pundits and the politicians are each spinning this in their own direction and one has to have some serious fog lights to eat through the “haze” that these guys spin in. Throw in the fact that no one is really exposing the REAL issues here to see if the actual bailout plan will truly deal with the real issues.

First, we need something to be done. Let’s get past this. It is true our entire financial sector is going through the dry heaves here as there’s not much more it can throw up. The entire financial system is starting to seize up and the constant coverage on these issues is pumping fear into the system and the heart of every American and even the foreign markets. So, if we can all agree that all of us losing our pensions, retirement funds, stocks, money market funds, and more home value is not a good thing then we can move on to what the solution should look like fundamentally because we do need a big solution to right the ship.

To start, one must have a basic understanding of the root of the problem. Yep, you guessed it, the mortgage meltdown which has led to the foreclosure crisis. Financial institutions, mainly the largest banks and investment banks on Wall Street are essentially holding large pools of residential and commercial loans (notes and corresponding mortgages) that are, for all intents and purposes, worthless – right now. Worthless because they cannot find a buyer for these notes (loans) with the current state of affairs. We all know that these “assets” are worth something and probably a lot more than just “something” BUT, if you can’t find a buyer then it’s really hard to place any real value on them currently. The assets are literally “backed” by mortgages and, ultimately, the real estate they’re tied to. We know the homes are worth something. That’s obvious.

Without getting into a lot of complicated explanations, this is the root of the problem. Now, you need to understand the process of the mortgage market because this is EXTREMELY important in the entire crisis. Almost 100% of all residential and commercial loans made since the late ’90′s were made by a “bank” or “lender.” Almost immediately after closing (and often before closing), these lenders sold these loans in “pools” to an “aggregator” of loans. Ok, a little glossary break down here. A pool of loans is two or more loans combined into a package. Smaller lenders might sell a package or pool of 50-100 loans to larger lender. The larger lender might buy 30 pools of 100 loans from 30 different smaller lenders. Now they have 3000 loans that they pool together into one big pool. You with me so far???

Ok, next here’s what happens… a larger bank (Chase, Countrywide, Wachovia, GMAC, Homecomings Financial, Fremont, Option One, etc) then sells these 3000 loans to another entity. This “other” entity is often a subsidiary but sometimes not and this other entity is a “Sponsor” and usually a “Master Servicer” entity. This means that this company is going to be the servicer of these loans. A servicer is the company that is going to collect the monthly payments, manage the escrow accounts, etc. Now, most people think that this is who they owe the money to for the loan they have because they received that notice about 60 days after closing notifying them that the “Servicing” of their loans was being transferred to XYZ Company. Because they make the payments to this servicer they automatically assume that this is now their “lender.” Remember when I just said that these large pools are usually sold to subsidiaries of the large banks? Well, it’s no wonder that these Master Servicing companies have highly similar names. What’s the difference between “America’s Wholesale Lender” and “Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.?” Well, a lot and very little. Both do business as “Countrywide.” One is a lender and one is a Master Servicer. Confusing? Yes. Purposefully? Yes. If there is confusion in Wall Street, it’s on purpose because these guys aren’t “stupid.” Stay with me here…

So here’s what happens to this pool of 3000 loans. The Master Servicer then sells these same 3000 loans to a “Depositor.” What really and actually happens is a bona fide sale of all of these loans. Now, here’s an EXTREMELY important point, pay attention right here. When a “loan” is sold, what is really sold is the “Note.” The Note is sometimes called the “Promissory Note.” The Note is the only and real evidence of the debt. The ORIGINAL Note that is. That’s why you’ll sometimes here this called “selling the paper.” The paper debt, the NOTE, is the debt and has an actual value because you, the homeowner and borrower, have signed that note with your signature and pledged (promised) to pay that debt back. The MORTGAGE is what you give to the original lender (and any subsequent purchase of the Note) as “security” in case you don’t pay the debt back. The mortgage gives the owner of that Note the security (the home or property) and thus the right to foreclose if you don’t pay it back.

Now, this is important… the Mortgage doesn’t give just <i>anyone</i> the right to foreclose, It gives the actual OWNER of the Note the right to foreclose. The owner of the actual and original Note. Not a copy of the Note but the ORIGINAL note. This is a very important point that must be understood and grasped, by everyone, including the US Government. I think that it’s highly possible that this bailout package might be relieving financial institutions of defaulted debt even thought that same institution may not even have the actual Notes to evidence the defaulted debt. And, is it really defaulted? How do we know that these entities weren’t already paid for these Notes? It depends on exactly WHO they are bailing out but if it’s any entity other than the Trust, those entities have already been paid for the Notes!

Back to this pool of 3000 loans… so the Master Servicer has sold the 3000 loans to a Depositor for about 102.5% of the face value of these Notes. When a sale of these 3000 loans is made, the Depositor literally pays the seller of the loans a lump sum of money and the Master Servicer in turn hands over the Notes for that payment of money. And then this same Depositor sells the 3000 loans to a Trust and “deposits” (hence the name “Depositor”) these Notes into the Trust. The Trust pays the Depositor a lump sum of money and in return receives the Notes. The Master Servicer or “Servicer” gives the Notes, receives a lump sum payment and then promises to “pay” the trust a monthly payment on the money that the Trust paid it. This large monthly payment to the Trust is usually guaranteed by the Servicer and is an aggregate or sum of all of the individual 3000 borrowers who paid their monthly payment to that Servicer. The servicer collects all of those monthly payments, takes off their fees, disburses some of it to escrow accounts, etc. and then makes the payments to the Trust. The Servicers also have multiple layers of insurance that insure them against borrower defaults because the Servicers do in fact make representations and warranties on the monthly payments to the Trust that really owns these Notes.

This whole process is called “Securitization.” This is a simplified explanation of what happens. Through this Securitization process, these Notes are packaged into what’s called “Asset Backed Securities” or “Mortgage Backed Securities” in what’s called a CDO (Collaterlized Debt Obligation) and are sometimes called ABS or MBS Pools. The Depositor creates something called a “Special Purpose Vehicle” (SPV) to deposit these Notes into the SPV and then these Notes are sold and deposited into the Trust. The Trust is owned by all sorts of investors, individual and companies, pension funds, foreign investors. etc. They collectively own these Trusts. A “Trustee” acts as an Agent for the Trust and on behalf of the Trust in a fiduciary relationship.

So, now that you’re a securitization guru, let’s get the rubber to meet the road in all of this.

Here’s the real rub. I told you that, legally speaking, the only evidence of this debt (the loan) is the actual and original Note; and this makes sense! If not, anyone could create a Note, get a copy of your signature (which they can get in public records on the mortgage you signed and was subsequently recorded in public records), paste it on that created Note and allege that you owe them this money. Also, because this Note is changing hands some 3-6 times in the securitization process, everyone touching it can create a copy and allege you owe them the money even though they’ve already sold the original Note and have been paid for it by the new buyer! Just like a personal check, the Note has to be “Endorsed” to the new buyer of the Note by the Seller of that Note. They literally need to stamp on the last page of the Note, “Pay to the Order of Without Recourse” and then stamp or write in the name of the new buyer. On a bona fide Note, this is EXACTLY what you will see and find. Everytime this Note changes hands, it needs an actual endorsement.

So here’s what literally happening with ALL of these foreclosures… the Trusts are the actual owners of the majority of all of these Notes. Yes, the Trusts. A trust has a funky name such as Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-5 or Meritage Loan Trust 2007-2. There’s no such Trust named Countrywide Home Loans or Chevy Chase Bank or Citimortgage or GMAC Mortgage Co. or Residential Funding Corporation or Amtrust Bank or Fremont Investment and Loan or Option One Mortgage Co. – you get the point. All of these entities are either lenders or servicers. Period. They are NOT the Trusts that your loan and everyone’s loans were sold to. Don’t let anyone fool you. Over 98% of all loans made since 2000 were securitized in just the fashion I described above.

Now, I can only speak to the 100 or so foreclosure cases I have personally read the complaints on in Florida and a few in Ohio. In 100% of these foreclosure cases, the suit is being brought NOT by the Trust but by the servicer or the trustee. Both of these entities are agents for the Trust but they are NOT the owners of these Notes unless they show that they re-purchased that Note from the Trust. In about 70% of the foreclosure cases we have seen, the Plaintiff (usually the servicer) is also alleging that they have LOST THE NOTE or that is has been destroyed. No, that was NOT a typo or mistake. Well, if the Note is actually lost, they don’t have any actual evidence of the debt anymore.

So here’s the question to start asking your Congressman or Congresswoman, your State Senators, your Governor and every other politician that has any influence and may want to be re-elected… if the Federal Government is going to buy all of these non-performing or defaulted loans (ie. Notes), who are they actually going to buy them from? The Trusts or the Servicers?

And, if they can actually tell us this in plain language, are they actually going to buy the original Notes? Not a copy and not some affidavit from some $15/hour employee who is swearing that they saw the original note before it was actually lost or destroyed but the original Note?

I’m not kidding here. I’m seeing 70% of the cases allege a Lost Note! When they produce the Note, what this Servicer alleges is the original note is, in fact, only a COPY of the note and is NOT the original. Want to know how I know it’s NOT the original?

This is easy folks. The entire securitization process that any and all Notes are involved is and must be disclosed in filings with the SEC. Yes, every Note is involved a securitization. And this MUST be filed with the SEC. And in these filings with the SEC, these companies MUST disclose all of the parties involved in that process and what that “chain” of securitization actually follows. That chain MUST be evidenced on every single Note on the last page of that Note in the form of an endorsement. “Pay to the order of…” Every Note should have at a minimum of 2 endorsements and more likely, 4-5 endorsements. If a Servicer or an attorney for that Lender or Servicer produces a copy of a Note that they allege is the original Note, all one needs to do is look for those endorsements. If the endorsements don’t follow EXACTLY what they have already filed with the SEC, they got real problems folks. Either they are lying to the court (called fraud) or that Note is faulty in that the proper endorsements aren’t there and most likely, both are real legal issues.

Also, in these foreclosure cases, the Plaintiff (a Servicer or Trustee) is actually alleging that they have the RIGHT to foreclose and that they are the <u>owner and holder of the Note</u> (which gives rise to the right to foreclose). Now, us folks and attorneys who are wise to this charade know that they are NOT the owner of these Notes because they actually disclose these facts right in their SEC filings! But no judge in this country is going to or has the time to go and do fact checking on these issues and hold these Plaintiffs accountable to what they are alleging in their foreclosure lawsuits. 98% of all foreclosure filings go uncontested by the borrower. This means that 98% of the time, the foreclosure process is nothing more than a rubber stamp process with judges defaulting borrowers who don’t show up to defend themselves. The Servicing companies are getting away with highway robbery – rather, home robbery. Yes, this is happening. Entities like large banks and servicing companies are taking the homes of hard-working citizens and they do NOT own the mortgages or notes secured by that home. Yes, these homeowners owe the money to someone but that someone is NOT the actual owner of that Note. And, if I’m the homeowner, I’d like the opportunity to have a meaningful chance to work something out with the real owner. Because what happens in foreclosures is that the wrongful party gets the home in a foreclosure sale, puts it back on the market for sale and sells it for about 80-90% of its CURRENT VALUE! Now, why not keep that same homeowner in the house and let them pay 80-90% of it’s current value??? Heck, make it 100% of current value. Granted this won’t work 100% of the time but I’m betting at least 50% of the time and probably closer to 70% is realistic. We have large financial institutions wrongfully foreclosing, kicking people out of their flippin homes and flipping those homes to someone else for a bargain while the hard working homeowner goes down the block to rent another foreclosed home from an institution that wrongfully kicked that homeowner out most likely! What the heck is wrong with us folks? We gotta take stand on this. This is the definition of absurdity ten times over!

So, to bring this full circle in relation to the latest talk of Banks, Bailout and the 700 Billion to do it, I want to know exactly what our taxpayer dollars are actually going to buy? I think we have the right to know this. I want to make sure that the Federal Gov’t is going to buy actual Notes and yes, the originals, not some fraudulent copy. I don’t trust one of these banks… These guys have bilked billions out of us and after what I have seen in what they file, what they are alleging in these foreclosures, etc. I put nothing past them including purposefully “losing” notes so that they can sell them multiple times to multiple Trusts or investors. And now they’re whining for a bailout to the madness they’ve brought on us all. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve talked to that have tried desperately and in good faith to work something out with these thieves and they don’t even answer the phone! You wait on hold for 30 minutes to talk to someone half way around the world who tells you to fill out 10 pages of information, fax it in and someone will get back to you – which never happens!!!

Folks, knowledge of these facts and issues is what we all need to make sure we can and do hold our government and these politicians to some sort of order and accountability before we just bail out one more flippin company!

Hope this helps educate you on the real happenings in this big convoluted mess we’re all in. If nothing else, you can now impress your cohorts at the water cooler with some sophisiticated mortgage speak.

Lane Houk

Jan
10

New Mortgage Bankruptcy Bill a Good Solution

Legislation designed to stem foreclosures by allowing bankruptcy judges to erase some mortgage debt will be introduced by Congressional Democrats on Tuesday, and hopes are high that it will pass after a similar plan failed last year. See Full Story Here.

Since the servicers, banks and investors thus far have failed to do anything logical in this housing mess, the idea of letting bankruptcy judges apply some logic and have the power to rework mortgages for homeowners who are stuck is a great idea.

Servicers are filing foreclosures as fast as they possibly can and cramming them through the various states at a sickening pace. Our civil court judges and clerks of the courts are participating in this massive scheme as well going as far as being publicly proud of their “rocket dockets” where 300-400 foreclosure cases are jammed through a 2-3 hour period. Shameful.

Shameful because 95%+ of all of these cases are filed fradulently. Shameful because judges are allowing institutions to take people’s homes without so much as raising an watchful eye to ensure that there is an ounce of integrity or truthfulness in the allegations lodged by the Plaintiff’s complaint.

So, here’s what happens… a servicer takes a home in foreclosure. The family is forcefully removed and forced to move into a different home (probably owned by another bank or even the same servicer). The institution sells the foreclosed home for about 80-90% of current value (although the FDIC predicts it’s about 70% of current value).

So let me give you a real live scenario of how illogical what they’re doing truly is: The family that was just removed owed $210,000 on the loan at a 7% interest rate. The home’s current value is $125,000. The bank will sell it for $105,000. The family could afford a mortgage of $150,000 at 5.5% interest rate. After closing costs, attorneys fees, etc. the bank/servicer will net about $95,000 on that home.

Do you see my point here? If you take into account the interest that the family would pay on the modified loan over the course of the next 5, 10 or 30 years. The modified loan is worth 2-3 times the $150,000. But no, the bank would rather create documents and paper trails to foreclose on the home, kick a family out of their home and take a massive loss on the sale of the foreclosure. All this when they could have logically modified the loan and turned a profit on the loan through a bona fide modification of the family’s loan.

This madness occurs thousands of times a day in our country and it’s high time that the government use some of the billions of taxpayer dollars to protect the taxpayer instead of greedy, corrupt institutions that have been the major cause of this housing meltdown.

Jan
09

Investigate that Note!

A law firm I work with had a case the other day that underscores the importance of this post… the Plaintiff (Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp.) in the case was pushing for Summary Judgment. In preparation, they filed the “Original Note and Certified Copy of the Mortgage” in the case record. They also filed an “Affidavit in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment” the same day. The Affidavit was given and signed by an employee named Erla Carter-Shaw who was supposedly in charge of the record keeping, etc. In her “affidavit” she alleged that the Note had not been endorsed to anyone else and thus Taylor, Bean & Whitaker was the owner of the Note. Now, mind you that they had originally filed for a “Re-establishment of the Note” in the original Complaint because they alleged that it had been lost or destroyed… Well, purportedly, they found that original Note and they alleged it hadn’t been endorsed at all. Well, we investigated the Note they attached in their filing and what do you know, there’s an endorsement on the last page of the Note! It was endorsed in blank and guess who had signed the endorsement stamp? Oh yeah, you guessed it, Erla Carter-Shaw. So she alleges in her Affidavit that the Note has NOT been endorsed and then she attaches an Endorsed Note alleged to be the original.

Another simple but important issue to investigate is the Note that the Plaintiff actually attaches (if and when they do attach a copy of the Note). What you want to zero in on are the endorsements on the Note (or usually, the lack thereof). Understanding the securitization process is key in what you’re looking for on the Note. The endorsements should absolutely follow the chain of ownership from Originator to Seller to Sponsor/Master Servicer to Depositor to Trustee. If you’re not seeing at least 3 endorsements on the Note then you know that this is NOT an original Note regardless of what’s alleged and/or claimed as to its authenticity. We know Portfolio Lending is a dinosaur and literally >95% of all residential loans made since the late 1990′s are/were securitized. Given these facts, we know exactly what to look for.

Here’s a real example from an actual SEC Filed Prospectus linked to a real live Trust (called RFMSI Series 2007-S8 Trust) for more context…
1. Homecomings Financial was the original Lender to John Doe. Homecomings Financial is the “Originator” and “Seller” of this loan and they are the actual “Payee” on the Note the borrower signed at closing.
2. Before the loan even closed, Homecomings Financial knew it was selling this loan to a company called “Residential Funding Company, Inc.” (RFC). RFC always appears as the “Sponsor” and “Master Servicer” in the Prospectus filings with the SEC. – I’ve read well over a dozen Prospectus filings regarding RFC and their roles as Master Servicer NEVER deviates.
3. Homecomings Financial sells the loan (in a pool of loans) to RFC. Here is where you should see the FIRST ENDORSEMENT on the last page of the Note. It’s usually a stamped endorsement that says “Pay to the Order of, Without Recourse” and then you’ll see “Residential Funding Company, Inc.” just below that and the signature of an authorized signor for Homecomings Financial. That’s Endorsement #1.
4. Now, RFC isn’t going to hang on to this Note (pool of Notes) for very long. They have already setup an arrangement to sell these loans (Notes) to a company called “Residential Mortgage Securities I, Inc..” well in advance. This company is called the Depositor. They purchase the loans/notes (the entire pool) from RFC.
5. Here’s where you should see the SECOND ENDORSEMENT on the last page of the Note. “Pay to the Order of, Without Recourse” to Residential Mortgage Securities I, Inc.
6. Residential Mortgage Securities I, Inc., as Depositor is now going to Deposit these loans into the Trust and endorse the Notes to the Trustee.
7. US Bank National Association is the Trustee in this transaction as disclosed in the Prospectus, Form 424B5 (which you can actually get online at www.sec.gov by doing a search on EDGAR; if you know the name of the Trust, you can plug that name in exactly as it appears in a Google Search bar surrounded by quotes and you’ll get all the filings on that specific Trust usually)
8. Here’s where you should see the THIRD ENDORSEMENT on the last page of the Note… payable to US Bank National Association.

Now, what’s material here is that in this particular foreclosure case, the Plaintiff was “Residential Funding Company, Inc.” – here’s a short Quiz question, “Who is Residential Funding Company, Inc.?”
Do you think they own this Note? Even if they actually have the original, it doesn’t mean they’re the holder in due course or the real party in interest. But, if you file a Request for Production of Documents in the foreclosure case the Plaintiff probably won’t respond or they ‘ll try to object to your request. Why? Because, if they can find the original Note it will have these Endorsements on it showing the chain of transfers on it and they will have just produced evidence to the court which clearly evidences that they ARE NOT the owner and holder of the Note as they alleged in their Summons and Complaint.

Now, if you can believe it, we have cases where they have produced the note with endorsements on the last page that DIRECTLY contradict their allegations in the complaint. The attorney’s that work for many of these foreclosure mills aren’t very bright nor do they even understand these things often times.

Thus, you can attack this point in the form of misrepresentation or fraud on the court by showing the court the SEC filings from the Trust that this loan was deposited into. The Form 424B5 (Prospectus) will clearly disclose the parties involved, the chain of ownership and their roles. This is your evidence (as an Exhibit) that the Note in question is either not an original or there are some serious issues with its authenticity or that it contradicts their allegations. No opposing counsel will want a judge to get his/her eyes on this and will usually suspend their prosecution of a foreclosure case if you make your case right with them first via phone. We draft a Motion to Dismiss and attach the evidence as an Exhibit (the SEC Filings) and in the Motion to Dismiss will be points and elements outlining the misprepresentation on the part of counsel and the Plaintiff. My wife will then send this to opposing counsel first and find out what they want to do…

Lastly, often times we’ll see some endorsement(s) on a separate page (not on the last page of the Note) or an “allonge” to the Note. This can be attacked as well. An allonge is easy to create after the fact as it is not an actual part of the Note. Check your state statutes but most states will require endorsements to be on the last page of the Note as long as there is room on the last page. You can easily fit 4-5 endorsements on the last page of a Note.

When the law firm gets a new case, our goal is to raise enough doubt to survive Summary Judgment. Once you survive any motion for Summary Judgment, these cases get dropped off the map. We also request a jury trial in every case along with a Request for Production. If the Plaintiff doesn’t produce what we request (and they usually won’t) for reasons stated above, you’ve got yourself a case. Hope this helps all you folks out there trying to figure out how best to fight these boys at their own game.