Jul
07

“special servicing” fees

FROM A READER IN COLORADO ANSWERING “ANONYMOUS”

You raise a good point as to the servicer keep all the payments. As it has been proven in the two WAMU cases I have, the servicer(JPM not Chase Home Finance) is compelling the action under a bogus POA for the trustee. The trustee does not have control if the operation as the PSA has always shown the servicer was responsible for the foreclosure.

That however is the crux of the issue. The certificate holders put up money to gain an income stream although they thought they were backed by the notes which were never deposited. This scam was different than typical bank bond holder deals that were present before this mess started.

The servicer is in control of the “limited” replacement loans that need to go into the trust if one or two loans default but once the pool is shown to be failing the status is void and the default swap pays in to cover the “event”

I would say that the default swaps may have been multiple and created to cover multiple things. One swap may cover the income stream which is why the trusts still exist and the other covers the principle balance which under REMIC is not allowed to be placed back into the trust mid stream. This leaves the servicer and master servicer in control of it all.

The master servicer controls the REO and the Payout from the default swap covering the principle balance effectively holding the total balance of the top tier certificates and the REO valued at maybe 50%. Since they are prohibited from depositing the money back to allow the certificate holders to recoup their money under the IRS code they reinvest it most likely in buying the certificates that are valued at 5 cents on the dollar from the holders that got screwed.

This will lead to a huge windfall when they weather the storm with the tax payer money such as TALF which is so much more than the TARP money and effectively allows the banks to pledge the top level junk they hold for real time cash.

The trusts stay open as they are trying to bridge over the issue and play the inevitable boom bust history they have made us live in forever. The income stream comes from a separate swap that keeps the dividends paying but the value is shot to nothing making the bond holders want to sell and get out and the bank uses their money owed to buy them out and screw them another time.

The servicer is then charging “special servicing” fees at a huge rate while body dragging the homeowners intentionally inflicting emotional distress so they want to walk away. This helps break their spirit and helps eat up the payments that are coming in that they pocket since the dividends are paid from the other swap contract.

The servicer is the key as they have always and will always control everything and the homeowner gets intentionally abused and the investor has no clue. They want everyone to bailout and walk away from the houses and the investments because they have a plan to use that to make another round of huge bonuses. This is why they value the fraudulent loans at nothing because they are yet the real value of what is being laundered is the servicing rights and the collection of the REO.

Lender Processing Services was funded in 2008 by JP and BoA so that they could perpetuate the fraud of collecting zeroed out loans and now the big law firms that receive the f/c files are going public set to retain huge pools of mortgage notes and continue the game.

If anyone can say that this problem is happenstance and not premeditated racketeering at its most egregious I would say they are certainly fit to be judges or negative bloggers. The entire “foreclosure industry” was planned from the start in the late nineties and this is just part of the cycle they expect us to sit through. It is too well planned with the legislature passing all the little changes in law in preparation.

Conspiracy theory or real conspiracy coming to fruition? I know where I stand.

I created a coin phrase for this….compartmentalized fraud which goes well with plausible deniability and this cannot happen without a master mind that lays out the plan….who might that be?


Filed under: foreclosure
Jun
15

Deutsch Bank: Peeling back the layers

submitted by Raja

Investor /Trustee on MERS Record

Please use this small sentence for these thieves who have multi roles,
“”You cannot be a Trustee or investor or own the note, lest it become a partnership with the certificate holders”

FOR ALL THOSE WHO HAVE DEUTSCHE BANK.
a). Investor and Trustee as per MERS member Org. ID # 1001425. Deutsche Bank cannot be a trustee and investor. If it has both then it has a partnership with the Certificate holders.
b).. Interim Funder and Trustee as per MERS member Org, ID # 1002959
c). Document Custodian, Trustee and Collateral Agent as per MERS member Org. ID # 1000649
d). Investor and Trustee as per MERS member ORG. ID # 1001426
e). Servicer, Subservicers, Investor, Document Custodian, Trustee, Collateral Agent as per MERS member Org. ID # 1000648

The address of Deutsche Bank from “ a-e” above is the same 1761 East St. Andrew Pl. Santa Ana CA 92705-4934

Deutsche Bank is also acting under the various layers 424(b) (5) Prospectus, Pooling & Servicing Agreement (PSA) filed by the THIEVES with the SEC.of Trustees, without any specific description, where One Trustee ends and other Trustee Begins. It is classic obfuscation and musical chairs Note that Deutsche Bank is identified “as trustee” but the usual language of “under the terms of that certain trust dated….etc” are absent. This is because there usually is NO TRUST AGREEMENT designated as such and NO TRUST. In fact, as stated here it is merely an agreement between the co-issuers and Deutsche Bank, which it means that far from being a trust it is more like the operating agreement of an LLC)

DEUTSCHE BANK cannot be a Trustee or investor or own the note, less, it becomes a partnership with the certificate holders(Who bought the certificates and invested money).


Filed under: CASES, CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, GTC | Honor, HERS, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, securities fraud, trustee Tagged: certificate holders, Co-Issuer, collateral agent, DEUTSCHE BANK, Document Custodian, HERS, Investor, issuer, MERS, MERS member Org ID 1001425, Pooling and Servicing Agreement, PSA, Raja, servicer, subservicer, trust, Trust Agreement, trustee
Jun
12

More Investors Are Suing Chase: Cheer them on!

Submitted by Beth Findsen, Esq. in Scottsdale, Az

Investors-suing-Chase-includes-list-of-mortgage-backed-securities-various-originators-like-New-Century-WAMU-Wells-Fargo-ResMae-Greenpoint-Coun

One of the many things I find interesting in this lawsuit is that FINALLY the pretender lenders are at least being referred to as originators and not banks, lenders or any of the other things that had most people believing.

Here too investors sue the rating agencies, Moody’s, S&P, Fitch paving the way for borrowers to make virtually the same allegations against the appraisers and the pretender lender who hired the appraiser.

The only thing left for the investors is to realize that the only way they are actually going to mitigate losses is by creating an entity that negotiates modifications directly with borrowers. Otherwise these intermediaries in the securitization chain are going to continue cleaning their clocks.


Here are some morsels you too might find interesting

7. The true facts that were misstated in or omitted from the Offering Documents
include:
(1) The Originators systematically disregarded their stated underwriting
standards when issuing loans to borrowers;
(2) The underlying mortgages were based on appraisals that overstated the
value of the underlying properties and understated the loan-to-value ratios
of the Mortgage Loans;
(3) The Certificates’ credit enhancement features were insufficient to protect
Certificate holders from losses because the underwriting deficiencies
rendered the Mortgage Loans far less valuable than disclosed and the
credit enhancement features were primarily the product of the Rating
Agencies’ outdated models. As such, the level of credit enhancement
necessary for the Certificates’ risk to correspond to the pre-determined
credit ratings was far less than necessary; and
(4) The Rating Agencies employed outdated assumptions, relaxed ratings
criteria, and relied on inaccurate loan information when rating the
Certificates. S&P’s models had not been materially updated since 1999
and Moody’s models had not been materially updated since 2002. These
outdated models failed to account for the drastic changes in the type of
loans backing the Certificates and the Originators’ systemic disregard for their underwriting standards. Furthermore, the Rating Agencies had conflicts of interest when rating the Certificates.
8. As a result, Lead Plaintiff and the Class purchased Certificates that were backed by collateral (i.e., the Mortgage Loans) that was much less valuable and which posed greater risk of default than represented, were not of the “best quality” and were not equivalent to other investments with the same credit ratings. Contrary to representations in the Offering Documents, the Certificates exposed purchasers to increased risk with respect to delinquencies, foreclosures and other forms of default on the Mortgage Loans.


Filed under: bubble, CASES, CORRUPTION, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, Servicer, trustee, workshop Tagged: Accredited Home Lenders, American Home Mortgage Corp., Chase, Chase Home Finance LLC, countrywide, Depositor, Greenpoint, HERS, Inc., J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corporation I, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corporation, JPMorgan Chase & Co, McGraw-Hill Companies, Moody’s Investor Services, mortgage backed securities, N.A, new century, originators, Ownit Mortgage Solutions, Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi, Registration Statement, ResMae, Sponsor, Standard & Poor’s Financial Services, WAMU, Wells Fargo
May
28

The Importance of Finding Your Securitization Documents

See special-offer-on-getting-securitization-report-on-your-mortgages

Jake is a former player in the trading of debt securities, so he knows what he is talking about. Here he writes about the PSA (Pooling and Service Agreement). The process he now goes through is tedious and sometimes inconclusive, but he gets about as close as anyone can under the current circumstances.

Matt Weidner is obviously one of the better lawyers who “gets it.”

The new service that we have launched and which is being tested thoroughly this weekend, takes the guess work out of it, gives you the right pointers, access to the right documents and a  commentary from me, Jake and other experts on our panel on what the salient points are that you might use in your battle against the pretender lender.

See special-offer-on-getting-securitization-report-on-your-mortgages

Submitted by Jake Naumer
Finding Pooling and Servicing Agreements is Key to
Killing Your Foreclosure Case!
Jake Naumer Fri, May 28, 2010 at 6:47 AM
To: jenniferacoke , Stephen Pope ,
Stephen Pope <stevelpope@gmail.com>, modification.llc@gmail.com
Finding Pooling and Servicing Agreements is Key to Killing Your
Foreclosure Case!
Today, May 28, 2010, 40 minutes ago | Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
If you’re being sued by any entity acting as a trustee, i.e. “US BANK
as trustee for the HP Series 2006-c Certificate Holders”, you need to
be aware of a variety of issues that may be helpful in your case. I
will start another series of video blog posts on the “Capacity
Argument”, because this argument works in nearly every case, but it is
particularly appropriate in cases where Plaintiff is an exotic,
alphabet soup Foreclosure Frankenstein.
Individual mortgages originated by lenders like New Century and Argent
were pooled into groups of approximately 8,000 mortgages from around
the country to form a Mortgage Trust which held mortgages which had
(on paper at least) cumulative values of between 10-12 million
dollars. These mortgages that were grouped together and given a name
like “HSI ASSETT SECURITIZATION CORPORATION TRUST 2006-OPT2C.
Interests in these mortgage trusts were then sold to teachers unions,
investment funds and other institutional sources around the world.
Before selling the interests in these trusts, the institutional
investors were required to prepare the contract that would govern the
rights between the depositor of the mortgages, trustee of the new
trust and the company that would be responsible for collecting
payments from homeowners and sending those payments out to those who
had invested in the trust. This contract is called the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement. The important thing about the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement is you will find in virtually every case that all
of the parties who are involved violate nearly every provision of
their own Pooling and Servicing Agreement. This has important
consequences that we will talk more about later, but the Securities
and Exchange Commission rules requires these trusts to provide
important other reporting information that was widely ignored or
worse, falsified by the entities in control of these trusts. Finding
such information can be a key to defending your case.
The Securities and Exchange Commission Edgar Database can be found
here. You can also put the name of your Frakenstein, Alphabet Soup
Trust into quotes, “The IXIX 2006-A Trust” into a straight google
search and see what comes up. Here are Step-By-Step instructions:
Finding Pooling And Servicing Agreements (PSA’s)
For Securitized Mortgage Loans
The “Pooling and Servicing Agreement” is the legal document that contains the
5/28/2010 Gmail – Finding Pooling and Servicing A…
https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik… 1/5
responsibilities and rights of the servicer, the trustee, and others
over a pool of mortgage
loans. The Pooling and Servicing Agreement can be a stand-alone
document or it can be
part of another paper, usually called the “Prospectus.” If the
securitization is public,
these documents must be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), and
will be available to the public at www.sec.gov. Locating a Pooling
and Servicing
Agreement on the SEC website can be a challenge. The most important
information you will
need to find the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement is the name of the original lender and the title of the pool
of loans. We will
work through an example below. Assume that the lender is Ameriquest
Mortgage Co.
We don’t know the name of the pool that the homeowner’s mortgage ended
up in, but we
do know that the mortgage was made on June 1, 2002.
Step One:
Go to www.sec.gov and click on “Search for Company Filings” under
“Filing & Forms
(EDGAR).” Under “General-Purpose Searches,” click on “Companies &
other filers.”
Then, in the “Enter your search information” box, type in “Ameriquest”
next to “Company name” and click on the “Find Companies” button.
Step Two:
The page you are now looking at shows a long list of the names of
securitized pools of
loans. We know the mortgage was made on June 1, 2002. Look for the
entry titled
“AMERIQUEST MORT SEC INC ASS BK PAS THR CERTS SER 2002 2.” The
document number is CIK 0001175125. Click on that number. We selected
this entry
because it said 2002 on it and the loan in question was made in 2002.
There may be
several other pools of mortgage loans that Ameriquest securitized in
2002 but this is the
first one we come to on this list (when reviewed in late February
2007) so we will pull it
up.
Step Three:
Now you see a list of documents filed with the SEC that are related to
this pool of loans.
Scroll down to the bottom and you will see a document titled
“Prospectus.” This is the
document that will likely be the one you want, assuming that the
mortgage loan you are
concerned about is in this pool. We can only make an educated guess,
unless you know
the name of the securitized pool in advance (which is unlikely). Click
5/28/2010 Gmail – Finding Pooling and Servicing A…
https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik… 2/5
on either “htm or text”
next to this document and the Prospectus will appear. Now,
bookmark this document on your web browser, so you can come back to it
easily in the future.
Step Four
Is this likely to be the document you want? Scroll down to page S-2
and you will see a
Table of Contents. Included in that is the “Pooling and Servicing
Agreement” which
starts on page S-76. Also, scroll down one more page, past the Table
of Contents, and
you will see a “Summary of Prospectus Supplement.” Certain important
information is
listed there, including the cut-off and closing dates for loans that
will be included in this
pool. The closing date is June 7, 2002. Based on this information,
you can assume that
this document governs the responsibilities of the servicer of the
mortgage loan in
question, unless that servicer tells you otherwise and can back it up
with a reference to a
different agreement or pool. Other important information listed in
this Summary includes
the title of the pool, and the
identity of the servicer and trustee. The servicing rights may have
been sold since this
document was filed and the current servicer may be a different company
but the trustee
(the legal holder of the mortgage) should be accurate.
Step Five:
Go the Pooling and Servicing Agreement to find what you need to know. It should
describe how the servicer is paid and by how much, who keeps late and
other fees, what
authority it has to modify the loan or engage in workouts with
homeowners, and its
obligations to pass mortgage payments on to the trustee.
Some of the best information I get comes from intrepid consumer
researchers out there who care enough to dig into these things.
Perhaps the most powerful thing about this and other online forums is
the ability for consumers and advocates to share what they’ve found.
In my estimation, what this pro-se Defendant found is enough to blow
the lid off his foreclosure caseN..read on:
I was served Lis Pendens last month, (April 2010), naming the
plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee for HSI
ASSETT SECURITIZATION CORPORATION TRUST 2006-OPT2 MORTGAGE
PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-OPT2
I looked into the records for that entity in the SEC EDGAR online
5/28/2010 Gmail – Finding Pooling and Servicing A…
https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik… 3/5
database and discovered that the last annual report was filed in 2007,
contemporaneously with a FORM 15 filing.That Form 15 filing claimed a
standing under 15d-6 of the 1934 SEC regulations which exempts the
entity of filing an annual report, whereby the number of claimed
investors had fallen below the SEC registration and reporting
threshold of 300 persons. ( To my understanding, the same Form 15
filing is also used when a registered, reporting, entity is
dissolved.)
I then began looking at many other securitized trusts in the EDGAR
database. Literally dozens and dozens of these securitized trusts have
done exactly the same thing. he trust is established and appropriate
SEC documents are filed for a period of time, usually 1 or 2 years.
The trust then files a Form 15 claiming exemption of the obligation to
file reports with the SEC under 15d-6
The paper trail for the Trust with the SEC thereby *ends* Many of
these trusts have not filed anything with the SEC for years. Many as
far back as 2005 and 2006
Some of the SEC Form 15d-6 filings disclosed as few as 15 or less
investors. Bear in mind, these are for trusts that purportedly hold
well over $1 BILLION in mortgages, and there are dozens and dozens of
these trusts with a mere hand full of investors! I also noted that the
“agent of record” of many of these trusts have changed many times, and
are very infrequently “named”, but list only an address and phone
number, (usually in New York). In several of the cases I’ve looked at
in the EDGAR database, I actually called some of the phone number
listed at 3:00am EST and got the voicemail of someone at a bank in
N.Y. Note that the answering party was NEVER a bank listed as the
Trustee, (as Deutsche Bank is in my case), or the trust
“administrator” as listed in the PSA or any subsequent SEC filings.
I actually got the voicemail of some fellow at HSBC Bank who was the
“anonymous” contact in my case! My point is this;
Has anyone actually verified that the securitized trusts claimed to be
under the trusteeship of some of these banks still ACTUALLY EXIST?
We’ve been so focused on the NOTE and the fraudulent paper being slung
about for assignment of those notes, and whether or not the
“plaintiff” has standing to bring the foreclosure action, has anyone
thought to see if the “plaintiff trust” is even still active or not?
Were many of these trusts actually dissolved after payouts from credit
default swaps and TARP funds and the actual investors now long gone?
We have no records to show whether they are alive or dead. Most of
these trusts haven’t filed anything with anyone in years as far as I
can tell.
Certainly, as in my case, Deutsche Bank, (as Trustee), still exists,
but can these plaintiff securitized trusts be made to *prove* they
still exist?
What happens to a foreclosure case if the plaintiff entity,(the
securitized trust, *not* the Trustee for it), no longer exists or
cannot prove it exists?
5/28/2010 Gmail – Finding Pooling and Servicing A…
https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik… 4/5
IT’S TIME FOR ME TO GET BACK TO AN ISSUE THAT I HAVEN’T TALKED ABOUT
FOR A WHILE AND IT IS THIS CAPACITY ISSUENBECAUSE IT STRIKES AT THE
HEART OF THESE CASES. SIMPLY PUT, A TRUSTEE CANNOT MAINTAIN AN ACTION
ON BEHALF OF A TRUST THAT DOESN’T EXIST.
STAY TUNED AND GREAT WORK FROM THE PRO SE WHO SHARED THIS INFORMATION.

Jake Naumer Union Capital
Licensed Financial Advisor
3187 Morgan Ford
St Louis Missouri 63116
314 961 7600
Fax Voice Mail 314 754 9086
5/28/2010 Gmail – Finding Pooling and Servicing A…
https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik… 5/5


Filed under: foreclosure
Mar
14

Arming Attorneys with the Ammo to Win

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