Jan
12

The Orange County Bar Association’s LAST DASH 2011! Mandelman, Greenfield & Bellicini – Continuing education for attorneys offering loan modifications has never been this good!

RE-POSTED, FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE…

Whittier Law School, Costa Mesa, California

The Orange County Bar Association’s 19th Annual Last Dash & Trade Show Continuing Legal Education Marathon is being held THIS COMING SATURDAY, January 15, 2011, and along with all the judges and lawyers that will be speaking, this year you’ll also get me at my legal best… Martin Andelman of Mandelman Matters!

It’s almost too exciting to bear, isn’t it?  Will the Orange County Bar Association ever be the same?  No one knows for sure, and you’ll have to attend to find out.  If you’re an attorney interested in making Mortgage Loan Modifications a part of their practice, this is the one continuing education class you don’t want to miss.

Julie Greenfield, who forgot more about compliance than everyone else in the state ever knew, but don’t worry, she’s trying to remember it all by January 15th.  Sam Bellicini, the Ethics and Bar Defense guru that’s seen what goes wrong when something does, and will make sure that you’re on the right path.  And, Martin Andelman of Mandelman Matters… who has spent more time talking to homeowners at risk of foreclosure than the law should allow will provide you with the tools and best practices to make your practice a smooth sailing success.

Together, the three of us won’t let you down, that’s probably why we’re on right after lunch… Because no one is going to sleep through this session!  Miss it at your own peril… and don’t say we didn’t warn you.

Register Online Now!

#9A MORTGAGE LOAN MODIFICATIONS AND HAMP: NUTS AND BOLTS 1:15 PM – 2:15 PM

1.0   CLE 
Samuel C. Bellicini, Esq., Fishkin Slatter
Julia Leah Greenfield, Esq., Greenfield Law Offices; Martin Andelman, Mandelman Matters.

These three speakers will address updated Obama Administration HAMP Modification Guidelines and non-HAMP programs offered by Servicers to assist financially-distressed homeowners along with addressing the compliance issues for attorneys who want to handle Mortgage Loan Modifications as part of their practice… the RIGHT way.

Advance Registration Ends & Standard Registration Begins on:

January 06, 2011

DOWNLOAD THE REGISTRATION FLYER HERE!

Location:

Whittier Law School
3333 Harbor Boulevard
Costa Mesa, CA

Event Description:

Continuing Legal Education Marathon

Time:

7:30 AM – 5:00 PM

Registration Fees:

Prices vary depending on classes selected and membership status.

I can’t wait to see you there!

Mandelman out.

~~~

Hey… why not take a minute and SUBSCRIBE to Mandelman Matters so you’ll get it delivered to your email daily.  Don’t worry, you don’t have to read it, if you don’t want to.  But you’ll feel better when you do!

Dec
11

Truly Mind Boggling Disclosures of Documentation Errors in Mortgage Loan Pools

proof-of-claimI run a tight, very organized and fairly lean organization.  In these unfortunate economic times, I could grow fast and manage a large operation, but I want to do things correctly and be able to keep my eyes on everyone and my hands in all my files.  Quite simply, I don’t want things to grow sloppy and out of control.  A major reason for this crisis is the banks and institutions failed to accurately document and close massive transactions involving billions of dollars.  Rather than do things slowly and carefully, things spun wildly out of control.

Have a long and detailed read of the document attached here that relates to a federal bankruptcy case.  It provides a sobering and sickening look into document problems for trusts that (theoretically at least) own billions of dollars in loans.  Now if I were closing billions of dollars in loans, you can be darn sure I’m going to work hard to prevent the types of errors like the ones reported in this report from occurring.

It’s very hard to digest, but read it carefully and consider the impact of all of this on the larger economy…..we’re all paying for this after all……

As of the most recent reports, there exist missing or defective loan file documents for several billion dollars in original principal amount of loans.

Repurchase Claims, the Trustee asserts that, based on its information and belief regarding the mortgage loan securitization market, such claims will exist with respect to 2% to 30% of the aggregate original principal balance of the loans in the Trusts (i.e. $908,468,758 to $13,627,031,372).

Deutsche AHM POC 9189

Tweet this!Tweet this! Share and Enjoy: Print Digg del.icio.us Facebook Google Bookmarks email FriendFeed Identi.ca LinkedIn Live MySpace PDF Ping.fm RSS StumbleUpon Technorati Tumblr Yahoo! Buzz Posterous Twitter Yahoo! Bookmarks

Scridb filter
Oct
15

Who Cares About Title Insurance? You Do

“By Dunstan Prial

Published October 14, 2010| FOXBusiness

Foreclosure-newsThe last thing most homebuyers want to think about at their closing is title insurance. They’ve already been through the ringer, paying thousands of dollars in often-confusing fees and signing mountains of documents.

Title insurance is almost certainly an afterthought.

But homebuyers may want to think again.

The messy fallout from badly — and, in some cases, perhaps fraudulently — processedforeclosures has cast into sharp focus the need for comprehensive title insurance. As always, homebuyers should make sure they’re getting a policy that covers any costs tied to hidden fees or liens placed against the property that may have not been detected during a title search.

But, now more than ever, homebuyers, especially those purchasing homes through a foreclosure or a short sale, need a policy that covers legal fees if someone challenges the validity of their title.

Lita Epstein, a foreclosure expert and author of several personal finance books, said one of the root causes of the recent financial crisis — a rush by lenders to sell mortgages willy nilly to as many investors as possible — can also be blamed for the current mess.

“These loans were sold so many different times that no one knows who has the original paperwork. That really gets to the core of the financial scandal. The original closing documents for these properties have been lost as those loans were sold and spread out among many investors,” said Epstein.

In recent weeks, many of the major mortgage loan servicers, including Bank of America (BAC: 11.99 ,-0.51 ,-4.08%), Ally Financial’s GMAC Mortgage, and JPMorgan Chase (JPM: 37.17 ,-1.58 ,-4.08%), have suspended foreclosures in the wake of legal challenges charging all manner of improprieties. And as of Wednesday all 50 state attorneys general have said they will investigate how foreclosures were conducted in their states.

The investigations will attempt to determine if loan servicers handling foreclosures processed all the paperwork properly. In affidavits made public since the foreclosure mess gained steam, some loan servicers, dubbed robo-signers, have acknowledged signing off on hundreds of foreclosures each day without ever verifying or even reviewing the documents included in the paperwork crossing their desks.

Thousands of homeowners whose mortgages were foreclosed on are now challenging the loss of their homes, and that number is rapidly climbing. These challenges throw into question the rightful ownership of homes sold through foreclosures.

“There are going to be cases where a homeowner has a right to walk back in that home,” said Matt Weidner, a Florida-based real estate attorney. “The title industry has to decide how they’re going to deal with these cases.”

That’s why comprehensive title insurance has suddenly become so important. So what is title insurance and why is it required by all banks making mortgage loans?

Title insurance is defined as protection against losses stemming from any problems connected to the title of a piece of property. So if there were homeowners’ association fees that went unpaid by a previous owner, or liens against the home placed by local tax assessors that weren’t detected during the title search conducted while the home was being purchased, those costs would be covered by title insurance. The insurance company will also cover all legal fees rising from the dispute.

The problems that have arisen in the wake of the real estate craze early last decade stem from the fact that mortgages and titles changed hands so quickly and so many times that, in many instances, no one knows how to track down all the original paperwork.

In regions hard hit by foreclosures — Florida, for example — much of that paperwork isn’t showing up when title searches are being conducted on sales of foreclosed home. Consequently, lots of potential problems are going undetected.

“There is information that isn’t making it to the proper place quickly enough and it’s making it difficult to be certain that the title has completely cleared,” Epstein explained.

Epstein said there are cases in which mortgages were split up among several investors and those separate investors have foreclosed on the same mortgage at different times, leaving the current title holder in an uneasy state of legal and financial limbo.

That’s the sort of dispute that title insurance is designed to settle.

At least one large title insurer isn’t exactly embracing these issues. On Oct. 1, Old Republic National Title Insurance Co., a unit of Old United International Corp (ORI: 13.93 ,+0.07 ,+0.51%), announced it wouldn’t issue new policies on homes recently foreclosed by GMAC or JPMorgan Chase.

Old Republic did not return calls seeking comment on its new policy.

Weidner said the title insurers should have seen this coming.

“Now they’re looking at all these allegations, and they’re asking how big is the risk and wondering what are we gonna do about it. The magnitude and the proportions are so big, you struggle to find an adjective,” he said.

According to Weidner, Florida alone has more than 500,000 foreclosure cases pending.

“Even if there’s a problem with a small fraction of these, it’s incredibly destabilizing to the real estate industry and financial markets in general,” said Weidner.”

Click to find original Fox Business report…

Tweet this!Tweet this! Share and Enjoy: Print Digg del.icio.us Facebook Google Bookmarks email FriendFeed Identi.ca LinkedIn Live MySpace PDF Ping.fm RSS StumbleUpon Technorati Tumblr Yahoo! Buzz Posterous Twitter Yahoo! Bookmarks

Scridb filter
Oct
15

Who Cares About Title Insurance? You Do

“By Dunstan Prial

Published October 14, 2010| FOXBusiness

Foreclosure-newsThe last thing most homebuyers want to think about at their closing is title insurance. They’ve already been through the ringer, paying thousands of dollars in often-confusing fees and signing mountains of documents.

Title insurance is almost certainly an afterthought.

But homebuyers may want to think again.

The messy fallout from badly — and, in some cases, perhaps fraudulently — processedforeclosures has cast into sharp focus the need for comprehensive title insurance. As always, homebuyers should make sure they’re getting a policy that covers any costs tied to hidden fees or liens placed against the property that may have not been detected during a title search.

But, now more than ever, homebuyers, especially those purchasing homes through a foreclosure or a short sale, need a policy that covers legal fees if someone challenges the validity of their title.

Lita Epstein, a foreclosure expert and author of several personal finance books, said one of the root causes of the recent financial crisis — a rush by lenders to sell mortgages willy nilly to as many investors as possible — can also be blamed for the current mess.

“These loans were sold so many different times that no one knows who has the original paperwork. That really gets to the core of the financial scandal. The original closing documents for these properties have been lost as those loans were sold and spread out among many investors,” said Epstein.

In recent weeks, many of the major mortgage loan servicers, including Bank of America (BAC: 11.99 ,-0.51 ,-4.08%), Ally Financial’s GMAC Mortgage, and JPMorgan Chase (JPM: 37.17 ,-1.58 ,-4.08%), have suspended foreclosures in the wake of legal challenges charging all manner of improprieties. And as of Wednesday all 50 state attorneys general have said they will investigate how foreclosures were conducted in their states.

The investigations will attempt to determine if loan servicers handling foreclosures processed all the paperwork properly. In affidavits made public since the foreclosure mess gained steam, some loan servicers, dubbed robo-signers, have acknowledged signing off on hundreds of foreclosures each day without ever verifying or even reviewing the documents included in the paperwork crossing their desks.

Thousands of homeowners whose mortgages were foreclosed on are now challenging the loss of their homes, and that number is rapidly climbing. These challenges throw into question the rightful ownership of homes sold through foreclosures.

“There are going to be cases where a homeowner has a right to walk back in that home,” said Matt Weidner, a Florida-based real estate attorney. “The title industry has to decide how they’re going to deal with these cases.”

That’s why comprehensive title insurance has suddenly become so important. So what is title insurance and why is it required by all banks making mortgage loans?

Title insurance is defined as protection against losses stemming from any problems connected to the title of a piece of property. So if there were homeowners’ association fees that went unpaid by a previous owner, or liens against the home placed by local tax assessors that weren’t detected during the title search conducted while the home was being purchased, those costs would be covered by title insurance. The insurance company will also cover all legal fees rising from the dispute.

The problems that have arisen in the wake of the real estate craze early last decade stem from the fact that mortgages and titles changed hands so quickly and so many times that, in many instances, no one knows how to track down all the original paperwork.

In regions hard hit by foreclosures — Florida, for example — much of that paperwork isn’t showing up when title searches are being conducted on sales of foreclosed home. Consequently, lots of potential problems are going undetected.

“There is information that isn’t making it to the proper place quickly enough and it’s making it difficult to be certain that the title has completely cleared,” Epstein explained.

Epstein said there are cases in which mortgages were split up among several investors and those separate investors have foreclosed on the same mortgage at different times, leaving the current title holder in an uneasy state of legal and financial limbo.

That’s the sort of dispute that title insurance is designed to settle.

At least one large title insurer isn’t exactly embracing these issues. On Oct. 1, Old Republic National Title Insurance Co., a unit of Old United International Corp (ORI: 13.93 ,+0.07 ,+0.51%), announced it wouldn’t issue new policies on homes recently foreclosed by GMAC or JPMorgan Chase.

Old Republic did not return calls seeking comment on its new policy.

Weidner said the title insurers should have seen this coming.

“Now they’re looking at all these allegations, and they’re asking how big is the risk and wondering what are we gonna do about it. The magnitude and the proportions are so big, you struggle to find an adjective,” he said.

According to Weidner, Florida alone has more than 500,000 foreclosure cases pending.

“Even if there’s a problem with a small fraction of these, it’s incredibly destabilizing to the real estate industry and financial markets in general,” said Weidner.”

Click to find original Fox Business report…

Tweet this!Tweet this! Share and Enjoy: Print Digg del.icio.us Facebook Google Bookmarks email FriendFeed Identi.ca LinkedIn Live MySpace PDF Ping.fm RSS StumbleUpon Technorati Tumblr Yahoo! Buzz Posterous Twitter Yahoo! Bookmarks

Scridb filter
Aug
04

New HAMP NPV Analysis Service – Prove the Servicer Wrong!

For over a year I’ve known that the crux of the issue for homeowners trying to get a Loan Modification under the federal government’s HAMP program has been the shrouded mystery of the NPV Analysis. The Net Present Value (NPV) calculation is the KEY component of determining whether or not the homeowner gets a trial, and ultimately, a permanent loan modification under the HAMP program. That mystery is now GONE!!

The problem has been that the NPV calculation is a closely guarded secret of the major financial institutions and servicers. If they can keep this calculation a secret, then they can tell homeowners (and even judges) that the homeowner did not qualify for the HAMP modification and no one is the wiser or can prove them wrong; AND that is exactly what they have done for over a year. Here’s the bottom line: Servicers do NOT want to modify because it is simply not as profitable for them as default servicing is. Period. It has NOTHING to do with the homeowner qualifying or not qualifying for HAMP. The problem is enforcement of the HAMP rules and regulations and unless you can prove them wrong with documentation, you’re basically screwed by the secret information (NPV test) that only they possess… until now.

The Department of Treasury is the government entity responsible for determining the formula and the dataset for calculating the NPV on any given mortgage loan asset. The NPV Model formula has been revised several times since the initial launch of the HAMP program and all participants are now currently using NPV Model 3.1 (version) in their calculations.

Here’s a direct quote from the HAMP website from the Treasury, ” A participating servicer in the Home Affordable Modification Program must modify any loan that meets the program’s eligibility criteria if the modification tests “positive” for NPV.” – notice the word “MUST” in that sentence. Here’s a link to that entire report on the HAMP site.

Folks, this is an absolute requirement if a mortgage loan meets the eligibility requirements and the NPV analysis results in a “POSITIVE” then the loan MUST be modified under HAMP. If the Servicer fails to approve the modification under this scenario, they are in BREACH of their Servicer Participation Agreement and this is actionable on the part of the homeowner; meaning you can go on the offense once you have proof that you do qualify and the Servicer has wrongfully and willfully denied you of the HAMP modification.

MBS Analytics HAS ACCESS TO AN NPV MODEL PORTALTO RUN AN ACTUAL NPV LOAN DISPOSITION ANALYSIS FOR ANY HOMEOWNER. Basically they reproduce exactly what the servicer is supposed to do and then hit ‘em between the eyes with, well, let’s just call it a very compelling package and argument to “modify this loan under HAMP or face the consequences.”

Yes, you read that right. So here’s what MBS Analytics does…

  1. collect ALL of the required information and documentation to ascertain the data and information that needs to be inputted
  2. calculate the borrower’s actual monthly income and expenses
  3. calculate the proper monthly amounts for taxes and insurance
  4. run an AVM (short for automated appraisal) just like the servicer does to determine a FMV (Fair Market Value) for the property
  5. run a COMPLETE NPV ANALYSIS which tests for HAMP eligibility, NPV Positive or Negative, New Monthly Payment under HAMP and eligibility for Foreclosure Alternatives such as Short Sale, Deed in Lieu and non-HAMP modification alternatives
  6. compile the complete package in a very specific order and format
  7. draft a cover letter with a summary of the NPV findings and the Loan Disposition Analysis and which also states their legal position on the Homeowner’s qualification for a HAMP modification
  8. attach documenation to support the position and documentation which details the Servicer’s OBLIGATION to comply
  9. cover letter makes a demand to comply and to modify according to the HAMP program and in line with the calculations for the new monthly payment under HAMP
  10. send all of this certified mail to the servicer

Call MBS Analytics today if you are interested or have any questions or want to get started.

MBS Analytics at 1-800-985-4685

Jul
29

Mass Extinction of Pools Becomes Clearer

Our good friend “Anonymous” has piped up with more vital information and expressed it more succinctly than I did.

“The senior tranches have largely already been paid and closed. Since the junior tranches are paid only if there is left over current payment – after the senior tranches have been paid. Thus, junior tranches are paid nothing (this is evident in investor lawsuits – damages do not deduct foreclosure recovery). If anything remains today from the toxic mortgage loan securitizations, it is the residual tranche – which has likely been resecuritized into a separate Trust – that is not a current pass-through security – but, rather, synthetically derived from a dismantled original Trust structure. “

Editor’s Note: In other words, if you have a high quality loan wherein you have a high credit score and received relatively good terms, it was in the “senior tranches.” The senior tranches were paid and closed. They were paid from the meager proceeds of the junior tranches, from insurance, credit default swaps etc. Bottom Line: If you got one of those mortgages, it has almost certainly been paid in full. So why are they still collecting your payments? Because they can.

Your obligation has most likely been satisfied long ago without any rights of subrogation. If you are in foreclosure now with one of these loans, the “Trustee” is in actuality out of the picture because the “Trust” was closed out (IF IT EVER LEGALLY EXISTED). All of this leads to the politically incorrect conclusion that people gt their houses for “nothing.” But that is not true.

ALL THE MONEY THAT WAS OWED ON THAT LOAN HAS BEEN PAID. WHY SHOULD ANYONE COLLECT ANYTHING FURTHER?

More comments from “Anonymous”

This is a very important post. I have been aware of cases where the defendant is sent to mediation without first identifying the real creditor. Some here have stated that the real party issue is not relevant because eventually the plaintiff will get his “ducks in a row” and proceed with the foreclosure under the real party name.

Not identifying the real party in court is not only fraud but also deprives the defendant of direct and timely negotiation with the real party true creditor. Thus, damages accrue to the defendant.

Although real party, in my opinion, is the single most important issue, I am not seeing courts enforce discovery to ascertain the real party. Once it can be established that the real party is not before the court, all the produced documents are also subject to question. I have seen cases where the real party is at issue – but most of the cases simply state that the plaintiff does not have standing – without attempting to demonstrate why the plaintiff is not the real party.

Since foreclosure cases most often are indicative of securitization, knowing the chain of sale/assignment in a securitization is crucial. Also, knowing what the “investors” are entitled to is important. Again, while I think this post is very important – i disagree with “there is nothing left to pay the investors who advanced money into a pool from which some mortgages were funded” 1) any investors who indirectly funded a “pool” – did not directly fund mortgages and 2) tranche “investors” – for which there a limited number of tranches – were only entitled to current income pass-through – not foreclosure recovery (which is not current and not passed on to pass-through security investors. (However, the residual tranche is not a pass-through – and is usually held by the servicer – who may -or may not be the current creditor). 3) the Trust is likely dissolved.

The fact that mediation is being conducted without identification of the current creditor – in whose name any modification must be contracted – is simply additional fraud upon the borrower defendant. This fraud is akin to “loan modification” scams that are being currently investigated by some state Department of Justices.

How and why the courts are allowing this to happen – and actually promoting it – is beyond me.

Editor’s Note: Legally this puts us at the horns of a dilemma. If we want to travel the path of “PAID IN FULL” then we are treading on the thin ice of accepting or admitting that the loan was actually legally and correctly assigned and indorsed into the pool, in addition to the usual “free house” talk.  If we travel the path of UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTED ASSIGNMENT then we get to the conclusion that the loan is still owned by the originating lender, who was PAID IN FULL at the time of the loan closing, but still is the owner of record. If we travel both paths, we are presenting a highly complex argument that most judges won’t understand. This is why the winners out there are not making big splashes with exotic legal arguments (even though they would be right), the winners are getting down to the details that any Judge would understand — SHOW ME THE TRUST DOCUMENT, SHOW ME THE NOTE, SHOW ME THE ASSIGNMENT, SHOW ME THE INDORSEMENT, SHOW ME THE ACCOUNTING, SHOW ME THE CREDITOR ETC.

MANY THANKS, ANONYMOUS!!!


Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure mill, GTC | Honor, HERS, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, STATUTES, trustee Tagged: creditor, fraud, mediation, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
Jul
26

Actual Fraud and Constructive Fraud and Other Fraud

From M. Solimon

Editor’s Note: Pretty Good Entry From M. Solimon discussing aspects of fraud. I would add the following:
  1. FRAUD: A false statement wherein the speaker knows it is false, intends for it to be relied upon to the detriment of the receiver, who does reasonably rely on it to his/her financial detriment.
  2. FRAUD IN THE EXECUTION: A trick where the signor believes he/she is signing something other than what the document says it is. Probably applicable in the mortgage mess because the truth is people did not know they were signing the equivalent of their own financial destruction whereas the parties presenting the document pretended it was a standard mortgage loan that had been properly subject to industry standard verification and underwriting standards.
  3. FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT: A lie causing a person to execute a document, and otherwise meeting the definition of FRAUD as above. Examples “This is the fair market value of your new house,” or “Housing prices always go up, nevr down,” or “we’ll be able to refinance the property, give you more money out of it, all before the time for reset of the payments.”

Deceit and fraud are defined separately in statutes. Under Civ. Code §§1709 and 1710, deceit is defined in simple terms. See Civ. Code §§1572 for both actual fraud and 1573constructive fraud.

Loook at Liability for actual fraud is limited to acts committed by or with the connivance of a party to a contract with the intent to deceive another party to the contract and induce that party to enter into the contract. Look under Civ. Code §1572

Deceit is appropriate under a material beach or perhaps cause of action. The notion of a lender, who willfully deceives its borrowers or customers leading to foreclosure so to remedy an investor issue and to avoid recourse.

]I suggest you use it there or for the servicing argument for showing the willful intent to induce the consumer homeowners of a right to modifications ad compliance with 2923. to alter his or her position towards litigation (and eat up the balance of legal reserves their intended for a defense and their attorneys). These guys, I know all too well and it’s all too much. The consumer’s injury or risk is liable for any damage suffered as a result of the deceit. [Civ. Code §1709] etc, etc.

My take on this is too isolate the actual fraud that consists of any of the following acts, committed by or with the connivance of a party to a contract who is the assignor and its agents and not the successors.

The argument is it is with willful intent a lost beneficial interest woefully deceives a trustor or mortgagor to the contract, solely to induce the other party to enter into the contract [see Civ. Code §1572]:

Deceit and Actual Fraud combined

•Servicing rights violate SEC 1122 AB,
•Accounting rules violations under FAS 140, FIN 115,
•Trust assets are restricted to passive investments,
•Lenders controlling interest revoke the powers of sale and foreclosure,
•Parties lack standing to bring a foreclosure by appointment,
•Conspiracy to commit fraud where Trustee, Beneficiary and Transferee are all one in the same
•Bid rigging at trustee sale
•Fraud perpetrated against the country recorder
•A nominal interest has powers that conflict in the original assignment,
•Violations of the Code of federal regulations “CFR”
Your feed back will be critical and evident where I have gone as far as I can. It’s not getting through to skilled litigators that still don’t get it. Maybe I am lacking your codifications eloquence and ledger capacity to zero into the abuses of GAAP in more subtle terms; LOL!

he head of the OCC stated in 2009 “I don’t know why getting relief from offering modifications is not working?”

It’s simple “BECAUSE LENDERS FORECLOSING DON’T OWN THE ASSETS THEY SOLD ….for starters.

That said, even after the effort and inability for the US Secretary to further tweak FASB to get them to completely roll over.

Few are winning here. Even Judges who are deciding the matter favorably are commenting from a wrong perspective. There is no demand on UCC judicial interpretations for perfection in a bonefide sale.

The District Courts hearing these chapter proceedings provide comments after deciding the matter favorably are merely suggesting it’s all about “get it right next time”. That wrong where it says’s to a lender they can bring it back, even when a decision is favorable.

The key arguments come down to the fact the lender transfers each receivable as a “whole loan” sale. For Pete’s sake, looks at the general ledger where the asset was entered as a “Receivable” and “Loan Held for Sale”.

That’s not “Loan Held to Maturity” but “Sale”.

The cost to capitalize and reserve a 30 year loan held to maturity defeats the arguments lenders are making that “they did not sell the subject loan. It’s the old “blank assignment” gimmick. Its arguments are lost in court where the problem peaks the Judges curiosity and that’s about it.

We know the value of the open assignment argument is defining for the court where it’s a bank surety and liquidity play. It’s also a GAAP disclosure fraud.

Therein the consumer is disadvantaged arguing defects after being instrumental in a lenders shuffling of assets for maintaining REPO requirements and in its pursuit for shareholder earnings and profitability.

My take on the matter is to let them have the consumer’s home. The consumer then makes the lender pay the price of foreclosure claiming recognition, for reclassifying the sales as debt and restating earnings.

These UD attorneys are so smart that they may cost these bank power houses a debt load totaling about $3 trillion and more in liabilities left off the books. It’s a scary thought actually where you put Citigroup out while not looking and as they still struggle with a $65 billion tax tab carried by consumer taxpayers. BAC may end fighting for their life with a private right to call receivership.

Foreclosures cannot continue in violation of GAAP and where lenders circumvent basis accounting laws while continuing to force the sale treatment issue and while denying they are controlling assets.

It’s the best of both worlds with sale on the front side and as if it was leveraged borrowing upon liquidation and egress.

As we sit I’ll show you the subtle instances of apparently innocent manipulation and confusion befallen o to the courts from errors and omissions which lenders are getting away with. That is happening as the courts say . . . . So what!

The errors and omissions are the desperate means for seeking to maintain some semblance of SFAS140 adherence while employing lawyers as third parties appointed by agents of agents by a nominal interest.
I personally have given up on the right MERS arguments as MERS is entitled to act as an accommodation and even a nominal interest, possibly.

It’s just so easy for one to see the obvious that it has become lost. The nominee cannot execute instruments upon being replaced by the signature below it. Hello guys, right! That’s the purpose of the nominee! And, while one courts rules in favor of the consumer it misses the call.

Something basic is getting lost and I’m not getting through. Unique “floating” entities cannot appear from nowhere to execute assignments by virtue of meritless appointments.

If one of your cases is picked up by the Fed it should register a nice settlement . As one District court judge put it with disgust. . . “The SEC is turning into a penalty and fine system where they are to quick to settle the matter for a couple hundred million every time allowing the defendants’ to save face.”

“That’s not bad!

The US AG office thinks there is a case for bid rigging but I’m not sure the AG’s office knows where to look. Yet as one Judge told me in court “speak English.”

The precise and distinct GAAP and FASB rules violation are clearly demonstrated in each foreclosure. Lenders are violating GAAP even with the recent codification, including revisions and interpretation.

It’s all mind boggling when you consider the distance in communication here and counsel’s alternative to grab the lowest hanging fruit. . . .A RESPA audit (what is that anyway) and a QWR that together are just not going to cut it.

These bank execs fail to realize maybe that these and other Enron style crimes, like those stated in the Fastow confessional, will gets you 10 years . . .at least.

M.Soliman
Witness to Counsel
Expert.witness@live.com


Filed under: foreclosure
Jul
06

Bank of New York Slammed for Misrepresenting Standing

6.29.10Bank-of-New-York-v-Michael-Raftogainis[1]

Judge Todd also stated that additional discovery is to be produced when the foreclosure involves a securitization, lost note claims, or a holder in due course challenge (which may arise in the context of the purported assignment of a toxic loan to a securitized trust prior to the trustee of that trust instituting a foreclosure action, as well as any predatory loan claims against the original lender). Judge Todd recognized that there are dozens of legal issues and inquiries where a foreclosure involves a securitization, and that a borrower has both the right to know who owns the mortgage loan and whether a foreclosing party has the legal right to foreclose.

WHY TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT IS SO IMPORTANT FOR FORECLOSURE DEFENSE

Posted on July 6, 2010 by Foreclosureblues

Editor’s Note….This case and outcome in favor of the homeowner was a direct result of obtaining an accurate title and securitization report from a qualified expert that contradicted the “alleged” evidence of the foreclosing plaintiff and provided substance that enabled the judge to rule in favor of the homeowner.

http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com/

NEW JERSEY TRIAL COURT JUDGE ISSUES 53-PAGE OPINION DISMISSING FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT OF BANK OF NEW YORK AS SECURITIZED TRUSTEE: OPINION COULD PAVE THE WAY FOR AMENDMENTS TO NEW JERSEY RULES OF PROCEDURE REQUIRING FORECLOSURE COMPLAINTS TO BE CERTIFIED AND FOR FORECLOSING PARTIES TO PRODUCE SECURITIZATION DISCOVERY IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO PURSUE FORECLOSURE

Today, July 06, 2010, 30 minutes ago

Jeff Barnes Esq.

July 6, 2010

In an extremely well-reasoned and detailed written opinion, New Jersey trial court Judge William C. Todd has issued a 53-page (yes, fifty-three page) Order dismissing a foreclosure action filed by Bank of New York as Trustee for Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2004-4 Mortgage-Backed Notes Series 2004-4, Docket No. F-7356-09, Atlantic County, New Jersey. The matter was decided on June 29, 2010 and the formal opinion was approved for publication this week after the matter was tried at the end of June, 2010.

The opinion sets forth an incredible analysis of a host of issues involving foreclosure in securitization contexts and highlights why a foreclosing plaintiff must comply with its obligations to prove standing in order to be able to pursue a foreclosure action. While we do not summarize the entire holding here, we do want to point out some of the significant findings.

The court found that there was no meaningful attempt by Bank of New York (hereafter “BONY”) to comply with applicable New Jersey procedural rules requiring a recitation of all assigments in the chain of title. BONY simple alleged that it had acquired possession of the note prior to the litigation being filed. However, the evidence at trial failed to establish this allegation, with the Court noting that there were missing documents incident to the securitization of the loan including the mortgage loan schedule that should have been attached to the mortgage loan purchase agreement. The Court also found that the “MERS assignment was potentially misleading”.

The Court found that there was a failure of proof as to BONY’s legal standing, warranting dismissal of the action and conditioning any refiling on a certification that the plaintiff is in possession of the original note at the time of filing. This is in line with the recent action of the Supreme Court of Florida which, as of February 11, 2010 by Administrative Order, requires all residential mortgage foreclosure complaints to be verified. It is no secret that Florida trial courts have and continue to dismiss foreclosure actions which do not comply with the verification requirement. It is hoped that the courts of New Jersey will adopt Judge Todd’s well-reasoned analysis and dismiss foreclosure complaints which do not comply with the New Jersey procedural rules requiring proof of legal standing to foreclose at inception and time of filing a Complaint for foreclosure.

Judge Todd also stated that additional discovery is to be produced when the foreclosure involves a securitization, lost note claims, or a holder in due course challenge (which may arise in the context of the purported assignment of a toxic loan to a securitized trust prior to the trustee of that trust instituting a foreclosure action, as well as any predatory loan claims against the original lender). Judge Todd recognized that there are dozens of legal issues and inquiries where a foreclosure involves a securitization, and that a borrower has both the right to know who owns the mortgage loan and whether a foreclosing party has the legal right to foreclose.

This incredibly significant decision will hopefully become the law in the state of New Jersey, and it is hoped that the Rules Committee for the New Jersey courts will soon adopt court rules requiring that all residential foreclosure complaints filed in New Jersey be accompanied by the filing of an appropriate Certification, and further requiring that all securitization discovery be produced in all foreclosure cases involving a securitized loan. We applaud and salute Judge Todd for his amazing effort to not only streamline foreclosure litigation in New Jersey, but also insuring that borrowers’ legal rights are protected as well.

Jeff Barnes, Esq., http://www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com


Filed under: bubble, CASES, CORRUPTION, Eviction, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, GTC | Honor, HERS, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motions, politics, securities fraud, STATUTES, trustee Tagged: Bank of New York Mellon, Home Mortgage Investment Trust, New Jersey, securitization report, title report, William C. Todd
Jun
15

MERS Attempting to Get Correct Identity of Investors

Training Bulletin
Number 2010-05
To: All MERS Members
`
May 26, 2010
Re: Identifying Investors on MERS® System

MERS® System Release 19.0 on June 14, 2010, will include Phase II of MERS® InvestorID. Phase I was introduced on June 19, 2009, to help our Members meet the requirements of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 by using information entered on the MERS® System to generate a Notice of New Creditor when a Transfer of Beneficial Rights (TOB) transaction was completed.

Besides providing a more robust solution for generating Mortgage Loan Transfer Notices, Phase II provides Investor
contact information to the public in MERS® ServicerID and the telephone Servicer Identification System, and to MERS®
Link Subscribers and MERS® Members in MERS® Link. Investor contact information also is provided to MERS
Members in MERS® OnLine, and in the XML and batch inquiry transactions.

Because of this increased visibility of Investor information, it is even more important that the Investor be represented
correctly for each loan on the MERS® System. As noted in the Draft Procedures Manual for Release 19.0 released on
April 15, 2010, Servicers may not insert their own Org ID as Investor on MINs for which they do not hold the
beneficial rights after June 14, 2010. If the actual investor does not have an Org ID, the Servicer may insert 1000002
(Undisclosed Investor) in the Investor field. Servicers may begin immediately inserting this Org ID in the Investor field
when appropriate, and may create a TOB Option 2 from their own Org ID to 1000002 to insert this Org ID on loans for
which they had previously inserted their own Org ID as Investor because the actual investor did not have an Org ID.

After the release, all MERS® InvestorID-related options will be visible to each Member in MERS® OnLine, including:

Mortgage Loan Transfer Notice (defaults to selected; if you have opted out of InvestorID it is deselected)
If selected, a Mortgage Loan Transfer Notice will be generated when a TOB transaction is completed with your Org
ID as the New Investor. Members cannot update this option. To request it be changed, currently you must email

InvestorID@mersinc.org. After the release, you will email the MERS Product Performance Department at
ppd@mersinc.org to change this option, as for other Member Profile changes.
New information display options that can only be changed by MERS (displayed under Investor Options):
o
Disclose Investor Information– Proprietary (defaults to selected)
If selected, Investor contact information will be included for all loans with your Org ID as Investor:
For non-rightsholder Members on the MIN Summary page in MERS® OnLine
For Members and MERS® Link Subscribers on the MIN Summary page in MERS® Link
In all Status and Summary responses in XML Inquiry and Batch Inquiry
o
Disclose Investor Information– Public (defaults to selected)
If selected, Investor contact information will be displayed for all loans with your Org ID as Investor:
In MERS® ServicerID
In the telephone Servicer Identification System
If you wish to have either option deselected for your Org ID before the release, please email your request to
InvestorID@mersinc.org, including your Org ID and company name, by June 9, 2010. Requests received after June
9 will be processed starting on June 14. After the release, you will email the MERS Product Performance
Department atppd@mersinc.org to change these options, as for other Member Profile changes.
New information display options that can be changed by the Member (on the Name/Address page):
o

Use Investor Alternate Address– Public (defaults to unselected)
If selected, the new Investor Alternate Address is used in MERS® ServicerID and the telephone Servicer
Identification System, and on Mortgage Loan Transfer Notices, for loans with your Org ID as Investor

o

Use Servicer/Subservicer Alternate Address– Public (defaults to unselected)
If selected, the new Servicer/Subservicer Alternate Address is used in MERS® ServicerID and the telephone
Servicer Identification System, and on Mortgage Loan Transfer Notices, for loans with your Org ID as Servicer
or Subservicer.


Filed under: foreclosure Tagged: MERS
Apr
19

Gap between cost of renting, buying narrows

Fred and Amy Archambault loved their West Hollywood, Calif., apartment, but couldn't afford to buy in the neighborhood. Instead they purchased a standalone home in nearby Santa Clarita. Their mortage payment is "a few hundred" more than their previous rent.Thinking of buying a home? Consider this: The gap between monthly rents and mortgage payments is at its lowest level in almost 20 years.










MortgageRentingBusinessHomeLoan

Apr
08

MOTION PRACTICE: US Bank Tossed Out for Fabrication of Documents, Failure to Respond to Discovery and Fraud Upon the Court

harpster US BAnk Tossed Out for Failure to Respond to Discovery and Fraud Upon the Court

Plaintiff has failed to produce answers to the Interrogatories for a period of 26 months, between the time the Interrogatories and the Request for Production were served on January 8, 2008 and the date of the hearing on the Motion to Compel took place on March 1,2010. Additionally, the court finds that the Plaintiff failed to produce responses to the Request for Production propounded in July 2009.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine/Motion to Strike was based on an allegation that the Assignment of Mortgage was created after the tiling of this action, but the document date and notarial date were purposely backdated by the Plaintiff to a date prior the filing of this foreclosure action.

The court specifically finds that the purported Assignment did not exist at the time of filing ofthis action; that the purported Assignment was subsequently created and the execution date and notarial date were fraudulently backdated, in a purposeful, intentional effort to mislead the Defendant and this Court. The Court rejects the Assignment and finds that is not entitled to introduction in evidence for any purpose. The Court finds that the Plaintiff does not have standing to bring its action. (See BAC Funding Consortium, Inc. ISOAIATIMA v. Genelle Jean-Jacques, Serge Jean-Jacques, Jr. and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee fo rthe C-Bass Mortgage Loan Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2006-CBS (2nd DCA Case No. 2f)~08-3553) Feb. 12,2012.)

The Assignment, as an instrument of fraud in this Court intentionally perpetrated upon this court by the Plaintiff, was made to appear as though it was created and notarized on December 5, 2007. However, that purported creation/notarization date was facially impossible: the stamp on the notary was dated May 19,2012. Since Notary commissions only last four years in Florida (see F .S. Section 117.01 (l )), the notary stamp used on this instrument did not even exist until approximately five months after the purported date on the Assignment.


Filed under: CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, HERS, Investor, Mortgage, Servicer Tagged: BAC Funding Consortium, C-Bass Mortgage Loan Asset Backed Certificates, fabricating documents, fraud on the court, HERS, Inc., Motion IN Limine, MOTION TO COMPEL, motion to strike, Series 2006-CBS, US BANK
Apr
01

Reg Z TILA Amendment requires new owners and assignees of mortgage loans to notify consumers of the sale or transfer

The Federal Reserve Board has issued an interim final rule under Regulation Z to implement the recent Truth in Lending Act (TILA) amendment that requires new owners and assignees of mortgage loans to notify consumers of the sale or transfer.

While mostly helpful in foreclosure defense,  the rule leaves open the question of ownership of the loans. Because of the practice of “assignment” of the loans to a special purpose vehicle, the Fed stopped there in its inquiry. If it had taken one step further it would have seen that the indenture to the mortgage backed bond conveyed an ownership interest in the loans supposedly assigned. it also leaves open the problem of whether the loans were accepted into the pool or were time-barred or were defective for failure to meet the requirements of recordation or recordable form set forth in the enabling documents.

The TILA requirement has been in effect since the May 20, 2009, enactment of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. Compliance with the specifics of the new rule is optional until January 19, 2010. As a result, new owners may (but need not) rely on the new rule immediately to ensure they are in compliance with TILA. Violations give rise to liability for statutory damages, including up to $4,000 per violation in individual actions or up to $500,000 in a class action.

The transfer notice requirement applies to all closed-end and open-end consumer-purpose mortgage loans secured by a consumer’s principal residence. It requires any person that acquires more than one mortgage loan in any 12-month period to provide a transfer notice without regard to whether the new owner would otherwise be a “creditor” subject to TILA. Mere servicers of mortgage loans and investors in mortgage-backed securities or other interests in pooled loans do not acquire legal title to loans and are not subject to the new rule. However, trusts or other entities acquiring legal title to the securitized loans are subject to the rule. The notice requirement is triggered by a transfer of the underlying loan, regardless of whether the assignment is recorded. Thus, assignees are not exempt from the duty to provide notice merely because the mortgage (as opposed to the note) is in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), for example.

The new rule does not affect the separate notification requirement under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) for servicing transfers on mortgage loans. Accordingly, new owners who acquire both legal title to a mortgage loan and the servicing rights will need to satisfy both the TILA and RESPA notification requirements.

  • The notice must be given on or before the 30th calendar date after the date the new owner acquires the loan, with the acquisition date deemed to be the date that the acquisition is recognized in the new owner’s books and records. In the case of short-term repurchase agreements, the acquirer is not required to give the notice if the transferor has not treated the transfer as a loan sale on its own books and records. However, if a repurchase does not occur, the acquirer must give the notice within 30 days after it recognizes the transfer as an acquisition on its books and records.
  • The notice must be given even where the new and former owners are affiliates, but a combined notice may be sent where one company acquires a loan and subsequently transfers it to another company so long as the content and timing requirements are satisfied as to both entities.
  • The notice must contain the information specified by the new rule, including contact information for any agents used by an owner to receive legal notices and resolve payment issues.
  • The required information also includes a disclosure of the location where ownership of the debt is recorded. If a transfer has not been recorded in the public records at the time the notice is provided, a new owner may satisfy this requirement by stating that fact.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, expert witness, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, HERS, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, securities fraud, Servicer Tagged: agents, AGGREGATOR, consumer protection, contact information, creditor, foreclosure defense, legal notices, MERS, mortgage backed securities, mortgage loans, principal residence, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Reg Z, resolve payment issues, RESPA, secured, statutory damages, TILA, violation
Mar
26

NPR Report: How We Found Our Toxic Asset

NPR Report: How We Found Our Toxic Asset

There’s no store where you can buy toxic assets; you have to know a guy. We know Wit Solberg, a former Wall Street trader.

Solberg left Wall Street to set up his own shop, Mission Peak Capital, in Kansas City, Mo. He and a dozen guys sit at desks with their tools: monitors, potato chips, Snapple, chewing tobacco. Pretty much all day long, Solberg looks at those monitors and evaluates toxic assets.

“The big black Angus cow that everybody wants? We’re not buying that cow because it’s too expensive,” he says. “We want the cow that’s got a wounded leg, but she might produce a few more calves for us — and [she's] cheap.”

Tracking Our Toxic Asset

Solberg starts searching for a bond we might want to buy. And that searching looks a lot like checking your e-mail. Brokers keep sending him announcements about which toxic assets are for sale today. One says: “Cheaper!” Another says: “Super senior steal!”

Around lunchtime, Solberg finds a bond he likes for us. It’s called an Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, or OOMLT (pronounced om-let). Solberg thinks we should offer to buy the bond for “half a cent” on the dollar. That means that, for every $1,000 of the bond’s original value, we’ll offer $5.

But it turns out the guy who’s selling the bond wants 17 or 18 cents on the dollar — more than 30 times what we bid. Solberg says these kind of huge spreads are pretty common in the toxic asset business. People just radically disagree about what things are worth.

Do You Own Part Of Our Toxic Asset?

We’d like to meet some of our partners in the pages of this gigantic financial transaction. If you bought a home in 2005 in Sarasota, Fla., ZIP code 34232, let us know in the comments below or e-mail us. Or if you’ve owned our toxic asset (CUSIP: 41161PUA9), let us know that, too.

We spend two days with Solberg looking for the right toxic asset. One, full of what appear to be California McMansions, seems promising. Solberg prints out a 604-page prospectus that reads like a historical record of the entire financial crisis. It’s all in there — vaporized companies, people struggling to pay their mortgages, and some horribly complicated logic describing which bond holders get paid, in which order, under which conditions. But that bond falls through, too.

Finally, we find a beautiful, totally toxic asset at what Solberg thinks is a good price: $36,000. Back in the bubble, somebody paid $2.7 million for this thing. We buy a piece from Solberg for $1,000. It’s going to be our encyclopedia of the financial crisis.

What Our Toxic Asset Looks Like

Our toxic asset has 2,000 mortgages, many of them in hard-hit states like California, Arizona and Florida. A lot of the people in our bond are really struggling. Almost half are behind on their mortgage payments, and 15 percent of the homes are already in foreclosure.

At some point those homes will be taken over and sold for a loss. Every time that happens, the bond shrinks. Eventually, our part of the bond will disappear entirely.

Until then, we get a little money every month from people paying off their mortgages. We just got a check for $141. If it goes to Thanksgiving, we could double our money.

By the way, we bought the asset with our own money. Any proceeds will go to charity. If we lose money, we take the loss.


Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, Servicer, workshop Tagged: CUSIP: 41161PUA9, Fla., Kansas City, Mission Peak Capital, OOMLT, Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, Sarasota, toxic assets, Wit Solberg, ZIP code 34232
Mar
12

MERS Admits NO Interest in Mortgage and No Loss On Default

see MERS INSTRUCTIONS TO TRANSFER RIGHTS OPTION 1

MERS INSTRUCTIONS TO TRANSFER RIGHTS OPTION 2

PRECLOSING REG SHOWS PRE-KNOWLEDGE OF SECURITIZATION

Arnold admitted MERS does not have a beneficial interest in any mortgage; does not loan money; does not suffer a default if monies are not paid; etc...the internal agreement used by MERS expressly disavows any beneficial interest.

By Mark Mausert, Nevada  mark@markmausertlaw.com

On September 25, 2009, R.K. Arnold, the President and CEO of MERSCORP, Inc. — the parent corporation of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. was deposed in Alabama. Arnold is also an Officer of MERS. Arnold admitted MERS does not have a beneficial interest in any mortgage; does not loan money; does not suffer a default if monies are not paid; etc. etc. On November 11, 2009, William C. Hultman was deposed in Alabama and made the same admissions. And, of course, the internal agreement used by MERS expressly disavows any beneficial interest.

One tactic, if confronted with a foreclosure in Nevada, is to elect mediation. At the mediation, demand the assignments, i.e., the assignments which would cure the problem (according to Judge Riegle’s March 31, 2009, opinion, as affirmed by Judge Dawson on December 4, 2009). MERS and/or the lender has been unable to produce any such assignments — because they almost certainly do not exist.

Request the Mediator to check the appropriate box, i.e., the box which memorializes a failure by the lender to produce all required documents (all assignments must be produced per AB 149 — incorporated into Chapter 107 of the Nevada Revised Statutes). The requisite Certificate will not issue as a result. The Notice of Default is effectively negated. The “lender” must thereupon issue a new Notice and the borrower is again at liberty to elect mediation within 30 days of receipt thereof. The borrower should pay his or her taxes, and insurance, but not the mortgage — especially if upside down. It is an effective stopgap measure.

If the courts continue to follow the reasoning of Judge Riegle and Dawson a borrowr may, if otherwise eligible, declare bankruptcy; bring an adversary proceeding within the bankruptcy; and discharge the “mortgage” debt (which re a MERS mortgage is not really a mortgage but rather an unsecured debt — per Judge Riegle).

Or the borrower may initiate litigation based on causes of action for breach of contract, fraud by omission and racketeering (Chapter 207 of the Nevada Revised Statutes). By conducting systemic predatory lending, and coupling predatory lending with credit default swaps, i.e., bets homes would be foreclosed upon, the lenders breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing — the duty to refrain from frustrating the purpose of the contract. Borrowers generally harbored two main purposes — to secure a place to live and to safeguard/create an investment. By engaging in systemic predatory lending the banks frustrated the second purpose. They devalued the collaterized asset and breached the lending contract. Because this information was not disclosed, fraud by omission occurred. A series of fraudulent act constitutes racketeering, which gives rise to a claim for treble damages, plus fees and costs. Those are the theories.


Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: Alabama, bankruptcy, beneficiary, Chapter 107, Dawson, Judge Riegele, Judge Riegle, Mark Mausert, mediation, MERS, MERSCORP, Nevada, Nevada revised Statutes, Notice of Default, R.K. Arnold, RICO
Dec
02

General Growth, lenders agree to debt rework

General Growth Properties Inc. said Wednesday that it has filed its reorganization plan, and its lenders have agreed to restructure about $9.7 billion in shopping mall mortgage loans.







General Growth PropertiesBusinessUnited StatesShopping mallMortgage loan

Aug
12

Mortgage demand drops as loan rates rise

U.S. mortgage applications fell last week, reflecting a drop in demand for home refinancing loans as interest rates soared to their highest levels since June.




Website Designed and Developed by Tampa Web Designer