Analysis Workshop | War on the Home Front

Jun

by Matis H. Abravanel, Esq.

Some short background information on this pleading, it’s an emergency motion to cancel a final sale based upon Fraud on the Court. This client came to us a month before his final sale date, and already had a default and a final summary judgment entered against him. Besides non-compliance with the pooling and servicing agreement, we uncovered notary fraud (see paragraphs 1-4 and attached exhibits) and a fraudulent assignment and endorsement of a note that was dated in January of 2006, to U.S. Bank National Association, as successor Trustee to Bank of America, National Association as successor by merger to LaSalle Bank, N.A.. However its interesting to note that Bank of America didn’t take over LaSalle Bank until October of 2007, over 1 and 1/2 years later! (see paragraph 17 and attached exhibits). Once the ‘pretender lender’ received our motion they immediately called us and cancelled the sale, and we haven’t heard back from them since. We are waiting to have our evidentiary hearing for Fraud on the Court.

Matis H. Abravanel, Esq.
Loan Lawyers, LLC.
www.FIGHT13.com
1 888 FIGHT 13

Filed under: CASES, CORRUPTION, Forensic Analysis Workshop, forms, GTC | Honor, HERS, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, Motions, Pleading, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, Servicer, workshop Tagged: Bank of America, fraud on the court, HERS, LaSalle bank, Matis Abravanel, MOTION

Jun

Lender Processing Services, Inc. Contact Info

By LH | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

8481Leave a Comment2010-06-03+13%3A51%3A56LH

In the secured offices (and network operations center) of this entity is the REAL STORY about the fraud being perpetrated upon the U.S. Court system and every post 2001 borrower, whether they are in distress or not. Here is where the system works its charms — from avoiding actual title reports, relying upon much less expensive credit reports, to the fabrication and probable forgery of thousands of documents in hundreds of thousands of foreclosures.

In law there is a duty to preserve evidence once party is aware of litigation concerning that evidence. If you are filing a fraud count you might want to consider naming LPS as a co-defendant. Either way you definitely want to issue a subpoena for their records concerning your loan.

Contact Kyle Lundstedt
and tell him to stop harassing us.

Lender Processing Services, Inc.

601 Riverside Avenue
Jacksonville, FL 32204

General Information: 904.854.5100
Toll-free (U.S. only): 800.991.1274
Fax: 904.854.4124

E-mail: mortgage.marketing@lpsvcs.com

Filed under: CASES, CORRUPTION, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, foreign relations, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, Servicer, trustee, workshop Tagged: duty to preserve evidence, evidence, fabircation of evidence, HERS, Kyle Lundstedt, Lender Processing Services, LPS, network operations center

May

VICTORY IN MONTANA: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ISSUED AGAINST MERS, RECONTRUST, AND COUNTRYWIDE

By LH | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

8254Leave a Comment2010-05-27+12%3A19%3A07LH

VICTORY IN MONTANA: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ISSUED AGAINST MERS, RECONTRUST, AND COUNTRYWIDE Today, May 25, 2010, 4 hours ago | Jeff Barnes May 25, 2010

A Montana Circuit Judge entered a preliminary injunction yesterday enjoining MERS, Recontrust, and Countrywide from undertaking any action to sell, encumber, or transfer the borrower’s property during the pendency of the borrower’s lawsuit challenging a non-judicial foreclosure. The Notice of Trustee’s Sale fraudulently represented that there was an “obligation owed to MERS” when there was never any such obligation, and there is no evidence of any lawful assignment of either the Note or the Deed of Trust from the original lender to anyone. None of the Defendants appeared for the hearing.

The borrower had previously obtained a Temporary Restraining Order which stopped the Trustee’s Sale. Yesterday’s ruling converted the TRO into a preliminary injunction for the duration of the litigation.

This is FDN’s second victory in Montana. The borrowers in both cases are represented by Jeff Barnes, Esq., assisted by local Montana counsel Eric Hummel, Esq.

Filed under: CASES, CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, Servicer, STATUTES, trustee, workshop Tagged: assignment, countrywide, Eric Hummel, fraudulent representation, HERS, Jeff Barnes, lawful assignment, MERS, Montana, notice of trustee sale., Preliminary Injunction, ReconTrust, TRO

May

MERS Bashed Again as Not Owning Anything

By LH | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

8230Leave a Comment2010-05-26+19%3A23%3A39LH

Therefore they cannot convey any interest in a note, mortgage, debt or obligation since they expressly do not own it and in fact openly disclaim it.

And stating the obvious the decision says that that note is payable to a specific payee. It must therefore be endorsed by that payee for it to be transferred.

SEE MERSdecision 5-20-10

Filed under: CASES, CORRUPTION, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, investment banking, Investor, Motion Practice and Discovery, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, Servicer, STATUTES, trustee, workshop Tagged: assignments, Bayshore, debt, endorsements, HERS, MERS, Mortgage, note, Obligation, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, standing

Apr

Trustee May Not Delegate But Usually Does

By LH | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

6825Leave a Comment2010-04-27+17%3A59%3A46LH

Most “Trustees” or Substitute Trustees get a package from some unknown source with everything already prepared and instructions to proceed. That is the exact opposite of the protections intended by the legislature in this statute under Arizona law. Your state is probably the same.

33-803.01. Trustee of trust deed; delegation of duties

A. A trustee shall not delegate the following duties:

1. The preparation and execution of any of the following:

(a) The notice of trustee sale.

(b) The cancellation of notice of sale.

2. The receipt and response to requests for reinstatement or payoff amounts.

B. This section does not prohibit the trustee from using clerical or office staff employed by the trustee and under the trustee’s direct and immediate supervision to assist in the duties prescribed by subsection A.

Filed under: CORRUPTION, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, Investor, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, Servicer, STATUTES, trustee, workshop Tagged: 33-803.01. Trustee of trust deed; delegation of duties, cancellation of notice of sale, clerical or office staff employed by the trustee, Delegate, delegation of duties, notice of trustee sale., preparation and execution, trustee's deed upon sale, TRUSTEES, under the trustee's direct and immediate supervision

Apr

Shareholders Sue Goldman, Blankfein Confirming Trusts Do NOT Own the Loans

By LH | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

6826Leave a Comment2010-04-27+17%3A52%3A24LH

Leo II
bgitt47@verizon.net

2010/04/25 at 12:26 am

Editor’s Note: I believe Leo is right. These suits allege that the SPV do not own the loan portfolios. They also allege directly that the Trust Assets included insurance — payments from credit default swaps.

Two revealing lawsuits filed against Goldman-Sachs that I believe further support arguments that most, if not all Subprime securitized Notes that went into default should be considered as satisfied by virtue of default and the ensuing payment to holders of the Credit Default Swaps (Puts) created for each such Note.

And then there’s the issue of TARP funds, ($10 billion of which went to Goldman-Sachs alone), which, along with the CDO payments should have been utilized to compensate the investors who purchased the Notes

All of which, taken as a whole, lends support to the assertion that the Notes are Satisfied..

All that remans is for the Courts to order firms like Goldman-Sachs to distribute the money to the investors, declare satisfaction of the underlying Notes and Order the quiting of the titles securing said Notes.

Agree? Disagree?

http://solari.com/blog/articles/2010/Goldman-Rosinek_v_Blankfein.pdf

http://solari.com/blog/articles/2010/Goldman-Spiegel_v_Blankfein.pdf

Filed under: CASES, CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, expert witness, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, politics, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, Servicer, STATUTES, trustee, workshop Tagged: Blankfein, credit default swaps, Goldman, insurance, Leo II, Shareholders, SPV, TRUSTS

Mar

Maria Leonor Gerholdt’s notary commission expired on 5/26/09 and Mary Jo McGowans’ expired on 7/3/07

By LH | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

5974Leave a Comment2010-03-30+16%3A39%3A49LH

You will need to check the date of the signing by both of these ladies. You see Maria Leonor Gerholdt’s notary commission expired on 5/26/09 and Mary Jo McGowans’ expired on 7/3/07. Here’s their respective info from FL

http://notaries.dos.state.fl.us/notidsearch.asp?id=1086223

http://notaries.dos.state.fl.us/notidsearch.asp?id=1012235

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, Investor, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, Servicer, workshop Tagged: 5/26/09, 7/3/07, HERS, http://notaries.dos.state.fl.us/notidsearch.asp?id=1012235, http://notaries.dos.state.fl.us/notidsearch.asp?id=1086223, Maria Leonor Gerholdt, Mary Jo McGowans, notary, NOTARY COMMISSION, NOTARY COMMISSION EXPIRE

Mar

Forensic Mortgage Analysis Workshop

By LH | Bankruptcy, Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

48861 CommentForensic+Mortgage+Analysis+Workshop2010-03-16+16%3A30%3A45LH

FORENSIC MORTGAGE ANALYSIS WORKSHOP

HOSTED BY BRAD KEISER

March 22-24, 2010 Phoenix AZ

Marriott Chandler AZ

For Lawyers, Paralegals and other litigation support personnel, expert witnesses, accountants (send a CPA a link to this post), loss mitigation personnel, and TILA (Compliance) Auditors

Register Today – Seating is Limited

Download ==> FMA Workshop March 22-24, 2010 Registration form

The purpose of the workshop is to go beyond the basics of the Truth In Lending aka TILA audit and broaden the analysis to include the effects of the securitization, chain of title and appraisal. The objective is to provide the lawyer and/or those that support lawyers additional leverage in foreclosure prevention, litigation or otherwise that will enable them to be more successful in not just delaying but winning or in the case of bankruptcy practitioners providing tools to enlarge the estate or challenge the motion to lift stay.

This seminar is going to extend over two and a half days and will involve multiple presenters. It will take place March 22-24, 2010 in Phoenix, Arizona.

In order to maintain the “workshop” environment involving interactive participation between participants and instructors, the number of people who can attend must be limited to twenty people. First come basis.

If you are interested in attending the FORENSIC MORTGAGE ANALYSIS WORKSHOP, please send your contact information to fdg.eventinfo@gmail.com no later than March 15, 2010. If you are planning to pay by firm check we must receive it by March 12.

The first issue we are addressing is the GAP between the basic computer generated TILA compliance audit that often suffers from GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) and a more comprehensive analysis benefited by a trained eye.
The main objective is the expansion of the analysis beyond the loan transaction itself and other areas of equal or greater importance to lawyers, specifically issues of fact arising from the impact of securitization, chain of title irregularities and evidence of appraisal manipulation or inflation.
Lastly, we wish to present a strategy that provides lawyers with effective tools & analysis, that can be the basis for an expert witness report or affidavit that changes the course of the case from a he-said she-said argument in court and directs it into discovery toward an evidentiary hearing.

The current trend, or so called “produce the note” is a strategy that is working only sporadically, one that some lawyers and many homeowners think is a magical “silver bullet” which can frequently offend the Judge’s sense of fairness when he/she perceives a borrower’s goal of “getting a free house.” We want to change that into encouraging the Judge to allow homeowners and their attorneys to be heard on the merits and pursue truth and justice. The goal is not a free house. The goal is determining not just if there are potential TILA counterclaims or remedies, but also the identity of the creditor, examining the documents, parties and process in a securitization, getting a FULL accounting of all financial transactions, and raising issues of fact affecting the specific loan/property/foreclosure proceeding that necessitate discovery and an evidentiary hearing.

Filed under: brad keiser, CDO, community banks, Eviction, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, securities fraud, Servicer Tagged: audit, bankruptcy, borrower, Chapter 13, countrywide, disclosure, discovery, Florida, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, forensic auditor training, forensic review, fraud, lawyers, lender, Lender Liability, loan audit, loan auditor, lost note, MERS, Mortgage, mortgage audit training, mortgage meltdown, predatory lending, quiet title, RESPA, TILA audit, trustee

Mar

Arming Attorneys with the Ammo to Win

By LH | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

5196Leave a CommentArming+Attorneys+with+the+Ammo+to+Win2010-03-14+17%3A25%3A53LH

Forensic Mortgage Analysis Workshop

Hosted By Brad Keiser Of Foreclosure Defense Group

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION

Winning Strategies Require Attorneys Have:

Leverage of a credible threat
Issues of fact that shift or heighten the burden of proof to the foreclosing party
Evidence vs Allegations
Understanding of your Opponent – Right hand isn’t often talking to the Left hand
Guns with only one bullet (e.g. produce the note) are for Russian Roulette
You need a full magazine in case you misfire a couple rounds
KISS – Keep it Simple Stupid…so the Judge can Understand

Difference between a “Loan Audit” and Mortgage Analysis

Assessing Lender Compliance at Origination

It’s all about Disclosure Requirements

How to Analyze and Identify Material TILA RESPA HOEPA Violations Yourself

Rescission: What it is and what it isn’t

Right ways and Wrong ways to apply TILA and other Loan Compliance Findings

Evidence or Characteristics of “Predatory” Lending

Using the Qualified Written Request (QWR)

Requirement to Disclose the True Owner

What Forensic Mortgage Analysis uncovers that the “canned TILA audit” doesn’t

Securitization for Dummies

Public Domain Evidence – SEC filings and What They Can Reveal

Important Questions SEC Filings Don’t Reveal That Should be Answered

What a periodic distribution report to the Certificate holders can determine

Chain of Title – Perfected Interest or Clouded Toxic Title?

APPRAISAL REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT

Filed under: foreclosure

Mar

MERS Cover-Up of REAL INVESTOR

By LH | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

5162Leave a CommentMERS+Cover-Up+of+REAL+INVESTOR2010-03-08+16%3A41%3A27LH

More and more authorities are holding that in order for a claimant to prove itself to be the real party in interest to support a proof of claim or motion for relief from stay in bankruptcy, as well as to prove itself to be a holder in due course, they have to prove the entire chain of “ownership” and “holdership” of the Note complete with proof of “value paid to purchase the note ownership.” – Lane Houk

Thanks to Ron Ryan

Editor’s note: If you really think about it there is no reason for MERS to exist EXCEPT to hide transactions under a veil of a “private” association of members, sidestepping the recording statues of every state and fooling Judges, Lawyers and homeowners around the state. Ron came up with the suspicion that Wells Fargo, HSBC and others were posting false entries on ownership of the note so as to dissuade homeowners from a “real party in interest” challenge.

He’s right and the information is starting to pop up showing this pattern of deceit, as you can see from the exchange below and MERS report below. Finding the creditor is this vast array of players is a task that must not be overlooked.

It’s just another example of why “auditors” and “analysts” need to include a complete review and research of the chain before they come to any conclusions about the TILA Report. These factors have a deep impact on APR, undisclosed fees and parties, and a host of other issues that are missed by most TILA Audits.

Brad Keiser’s Forensic Analysis Workshop will show you how to perform this analysis and research. If you are not already well versed in the securitization process and its impact on the mortgage, note, obligation and closing documents, you need to attend this workshop before you send out any more reports without referencing these factors.

——————————————————————–

Ronald Ryan: [It is highly probable] that HSBC, Wells Fargo and some others have come up with an extra creative way to hide the fact that a Note has been pooled into a MBS Pool. As many know, if one is able to obtain the MERS Milestone History and MERS Min Summary there is a great wealth of useful information. These documents are available online, but not to the public. It is not always easy to obtain these. Also, the information that is even on this is not perfect. The information that is shown depends on the information provided by the MERS Membership. I think that HSBC, Wells and others routinely list loans in which they are the Servicer as showing they are both Servicer and Current Investor. In other words, they publish on these secret data bases that they actually own and hold the Note in their own right, when they are really only the Servicer and the Note is pooled just like in every other instance of a Note executed between 2001-early 2008. The idea is that they know that attorneys for borrowers may obtain these documents, and this may dissuade an attack on their “real party in interest” status.

RONALD RYAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
RONALD RYAN PC
1413 E HEDRICK DRIVE
TUCSON AZ 85719
(520)298‐3333
(520)743‐1020 fax
ronryanlaw@cox.net

http://www.ronryanlaw.com

MILESTONES for 1000302-0055800082-2
Description Date Initiating
Organization / User Milestone Information
Foreclosure Status
Update
11/27/2007 1000115 CitiMortgage, Inc. MIN Status: Active (Registered)
Foreclosure Status: Foreclosure
Pending (option 2), retained on
MERS
Quality Review: Y
Batch
Transfer of Flow
TOS/TOB
Servicing Rights
10/17/2005 1000302 Cherry Creek Mortgage Company,
Inc.
MIN Status: Active (Registered)
New Investor: 1000115
CitiMortgage, Inc.
Old Investor: 1000302 Cherry
Creek Mortgage Company, Inc.
Batch Number: 2785251
Transfer Date: 10/14/2005
Christy Martin
Transfer of Flow
TOS/TOB
Servicing Rights
10/17/2005 1000302 Cherry Creek Mortgage Company,
Inc.
MIN Status: Active (Registered)
New Servicer: 1000115
CitiMortgage, Inc.
Old Servicer: 1000302 Cherry
Creek Mortgage Company, Inc.
Batch Number: 2785251
Sale Date: 10/14/2005
Transfer Date: 10/14/2005
Christy Martin
Release Interim
Funder Interests
10/14/2005 1000108 GMAC Bank (1) MIN Status: Active (Registered)
Old Interim Funder: 1000108
Batch GMAC Bank (1)
Registration 10/03/2005 1000302 Cherry Creek Mortgage Company,
Inc.
MIN Status: Active (Registered)
Servicer: 1000302 Cherry Creek
Batch Mortgage Company, Inc.
Page 1 of 1

https://www.mersonline.org/mers/mininfo/minviewmiles.jsp?aux=A968006867765676A

RONALD RYAN
From: RONALD RYAN [ronryanlaw@cox.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 7:02 AM
To: ‘Lane Houk’
Subject: MERS RE: QUESTION AND REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK
Attachments: image001.png; image002.gif
Thank you. That is very helpful. As to discovery on MERS, do you mean a subpoena or a request for production? I have
had them ignore subpoenas. Do you have a ruling on enforcement of a request for production against them, if they are not named? Also, see below. If you would like a copy of my latest briefing on the relevant issues, I would be happy to provide it to you for the assistance you provided. Thanks again.
RONALD RYAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
RONALD RYAN PC
1413 E HEDRICK DRIVE
TUCSON AZ 85719
(520)298‐3333
(520)743‐1020 fax
ronryanlaw@cox.net

http://www.ronryanlaw.com

From: Lane Houk [mailto:Lane@thePatriotsWar.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 6:19 AM
To: ‘RONALD RYAN’
Subject: RE: QUESTION AND REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK
Ron,
Your suspicions are correct. See attached milestone report… Citimortgage is listing itself as Servicer and Investor.
Citimortgage does not invest in the loans. At the very least, the owner is Citibank but more likely a private trust or public trust since the loan is a jumbo.
Also, another thing to note on this report is the 10/14/2005 milestone… “Release Interim Funder Interests” naming GMAC Bank as the Interim Funder. On this transaction, GMAC Bank was never named in any document, no disclosure,
nothing. Cherry Creek Mortgage Company was supposedly the “Lender” in this transaction and is listed on HUD‐1 as lender, was the entity which disclosed under the TILA.
The “Lender” on the Note and DOT is never the actual source of funds. Is it your position that TILA requires that the actual source of funding be disclosed?
When we got this milestone report, it prompted specific discovery for all bailee agreements subject to this transaction; still waiting on that. There will also be a break in chain of title since the only assignment they’ve ever produced/recorded is from MERS to Citimortgage.
When you say break in the chain of title, you mean break in the chain of ownership of the Note? More and more authorities are holding that in order for a claimant to prove itself to be the real party in interest to support a proof of claim or motion for relief from stay in bankruptcy, as well as to prove itself to be a holder in due course, they have to prove the entire chain of “ownership” and “holdership” of the Note complete with proof of “value paid to purchase the note ownership.”
2
Lastly, you can get these milestone reports through discovery served on MERS regardless if they are named.
Hope this helps,
Lane Houk, CLA
National Institute of Consumer Advocacy, LLC
Consumer Debt Analyst & Investigator

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: brad keiser, chain of ownership, creditor, forensic analysis, Lane Houk, MERS, MIN report, real investor, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, Ron Ryan

Mar

Securitization and TILA Audits: You Can’t Do One without the Other

By LH | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

5106Leave a Comment2010-03-05+17%3A15%3A14LH

Article below submitted From the desk of Brad Keiser:

Editor’s note: This is a perfect example of why ignoring the complexities of securitization leaves all the red meat on the table. The commingling of funds that is cited in the article below is exactly what I have I have been talking about , exactly why the pretender lenders balk at a full accounting, and exactly why a full forensic analysis (like the one Brad will be presenting later this month) is essential if you are going to battle.

see: Brad Keiser\’s Forensic Analysis Workshop

It is not enough to know about securitization. You must understand what effect it had on the transaction. It sounds counter-intuitive to say that when you know the homeowner has not made a payment, the obligation might still be considered performing and NOT in default because the payments were made to the creditor.

This does not automatically mean that you get a free house. But it does mean that the real creditor who has advanced the money, the creditor that the debtor owes money to, is the real party in interest and they might no longer be secured depending upon the nature of the payment and the handling of the accounts — which is why I think that accountants would be ideal candidates for Brad’s workshop.

Securitized loans are not a separate animal from the discrepancies that are revealed in TILA audits. They impact the TILA audit in a way that dwarfs all other factors. Like the fact that the $5,000 yield spread premium paid to the mortgage broker is just a small fraction of the yield spread pocketed by the investment banking crowd behind the curtain.

And what about the very significant impact of those spreads and premiums combined with the impact of a reset on the life of the loan, and the false appraisal? The APR is misstated in virtually every securitized loan not by small amounts or fractions but by multiples of more than 100% of the loan principal in some cases.

Moody’s warns on GMAC mortgage bond servicing
Thu Mar 4, 2010 3:07pm EST
Related News

* Moody’s upgrades GMAC on US Tsy capital infusion
Fri, Feb 5 2010

NEW YORK, March 4 (Reuters) – Moody’s Investors Service on Thursday said it may downgrade portions of 125 residential mortgage bonds based on unusual “cash management arrangements” of GMAC Mortgage LLC, which services loans in the securities.

The rating company said GMAC commingled cash flows from multiple bonds in a single custodial account, Moody’s said in a statement. This allowed GMAC to use cash from loans in one bond for principal and interest payments on another, it said.

By allowing the commingling, it “increases the likelihood that some RMBS deals may not be able to recover the amounts ‘borrowed’ by the servicer to fund advances or another RMBS deal if a servicer bankruptcy were to occur,” Moody’s said.

This could give rise to competing claims in a bankruptcy proceeding, the rater said.

Downgrades based on mortgage servicing, rather than credit, may add to concerns of bond investors who have been long accustomed to harsh rating cuts as delinquencies and foreclosures increase losses.

GMAC Mortgage is a unit of Residential Capital LLC. Residential Capital is owned by GMAC Inc.

For some commentary see this link:
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/

Brad Keiser

(513)289-5353