You are here: Home / Archives for Obligation
May
26

MERS Bashed Again as Not Owning Anything

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

Leave a Comment

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
May
21

Assignments: Why Were They Needed?

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

Leave a Comment

Since the entire scheme was based upon using money advanced by investors, why are they not the beneficiaries on the mortgage or deed of trust and why were they not the payee on the note?

The investors would not have advanced any money without getting a certificated or non-certificated interest in the pool of assets “purchased” with money from a pool of money collected from a group of investors.

There could be no certificate of asset backed series xxx-2006A without there being something in existence bearing the name asset backed series xxx-2006A.

There could be no entity (SPV) bearing the name asset backed series xxx-2006A without a framework of securitization of money (SIV) and assets (SPV).

That framework could not exist but for the existence of securitization documents including the pooling and service agreement.

Thus all this must be in place before accepting the first application for a loan.

Therefore when the loan closed the true beneficiaries and payees on the note were known and should have been named as such without a nominee (MERS) or any other intermediaries. Of course THAT would have ceded control over the pool of assets to the owners of that investment, something that neither the investment bank nor any of the other intermediaries wanted. It would mean that loans and claims could be modified or settled easily since all parties are known.

It would also mean that if the intermediaries did anything wrong, like for example investing only part of the money into mortgages and keeping the rest, BOTH the investor and the borrower would probably find out. And it would mean that third party payment would be made to the investors and the investors would deduct those payments from the balance due on the obligation and statements sent out to borrowers would reflect the change _ i.e., either a deduction or subrogation of rights, spreading the ownership out to the third parties who made the payments.

And THAT would mean all those illicit profits would be the subject of liability and damages in lawsuits and maybe criminal liability. So the pretender lenders are right. This is a simple matter — or would be — if they had played by the rules and named the right parties to begin with. Maybe they would even have used industry standard underwriting principles since there was real risk involved.


Filed under: foreclosure
May
19

House for Free? Don’t get Caught in that Trap

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

Leave a Comment

I’m probably partly to blame for this notion so I want to correct it. The goal is NOT to get your house for free, although that COULD be the result, as we have seen in a few hundred cases. The simple answer is “No Judge I am not trying to get my house for free, I’m trying to stop THEM from getting my house for free. They don’t have one dime invested in this deal and payments have been received by the real creditors for which they refuse to give an accounting.”

The obligation WAS created. The question is not who holds the note but to whom the note is payable, and what is the balance due on the note after a full accounting from the creditor.

So don’t leave your mouth hanging open when the Judge says something like that. Tell him or her that they have the wrong impression because they are getting misinformation from the other side which is trying to get a lawyer’s argument admitted as evidence. Tell him you want the deal you signed up for — including the appraised value that the lender represented to you at closing.

Don’t say you won’t pay anything. Offer to make a monthly payment into the court registry — not in the amount demanded, but for perhaps 25% of the amount demanded. Tell him you refuse to pay someone who never lent you the money, who is not on the closing documents and is relying on securitization documents which contain multiple conditions, many of which they have violated.

Tell the Judge you deny the default because you know they received third party payments and they refuse to allocate the payments to your loan, and they refuse to inform you or the Court as to whether these third party insurers and guarantors have equitable or legal rights of subrogation. Subrogation is taking the place of another person because you are the real party in interest.

“Why should I lose my house just because I didn’t pay them. The note isn’t payable to them. Even if they have an assignment, it violates the terms under which they are permitted to accept it, and even if they were permitted to accept it, it wold be on behalf of the true creditors who were the investors who advanced the funds and now could be anyone because of the transactions in which the investors were paid or settled.

“The question is not whether I made a payment, it is whether a payment is due after allocation of third party insurance, credit default swap and guarantee payments. Who are they to declare a default when they refuse to give a full accounting?”


Filed under: foreclosure
May
12

Shack; JPM, Trustee Lacks Standing, Vacates Foreclosure

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

Leave a Comment

The true answer is that securitization is a process that is still on going and not an event.The Real Party in Interest (and the real amount of principal due, if any) is in a state of flux hidden by obscure, hidden or “confidential documentation.” Don’t make it your problem to unravel it. Use your strength to force THEM to prove their claim whether it is in a judicial or non-judicial proceeding.

Editor’s Comment: In case you haven’t noticed, this case, along with some others I’ve heard about but not received, closes the loop. The Pretender Lenders have now tried to use all the major parties and some of the minor parties in foreclosures and when tested have failed to prove standing. standing is a jurisdictional matter and it basically boils down to “You don’t belong here, you have no rights to enforce, you have no interest in this litigation, so get out of here and don’t come back.”

They tried MERS, Servicers, Foreclosure Specialty processors, Trustees, originating “lenders” and they come up empty. why because they are all intermediaries and as Judge Holloway put it, the note is not payable to them, the mortgage does not secure them, the obligation is not due to them and therefore they can’t proceed. In non-judicial states they get around this requirement unless the homeowner brings suit.

So who is the real party in interest? See the Fordham Law Review article posted on this blog more than two years ago “Will the Real Party in Interest Please Stand Up.”

The answer isn’t easy, but the strategy is very simple — don’t accept responsibility for the narrative or you will be taking on the burden of proof in THEIR case. They have the information and you don’t. The true answer is that securitization is a process that is still on going and not an event. The Real Party in Interest (and the real amount of principal due, if any) is in a state of flux hidden by obscure, hidden or “confidential documentation. Don’t make it your problem to unravel it. Use your strength to force THEM to prove their claim whether it is in a judicial or non-judicial proceeding.

The real reason for them NOT simply bringing in the investors who at least WERE parties in interest is multifold:

  • The meeting of the investor with the borrower will result in comparing notes and the fact that not all the money advanced by investors was actually invested in mortgages will be “problematic” for the investment bankers who put this scheme together.
  • The meeting of the investor and borrower could result in an alliance in litigation in which the shell game would be impossible.
  • The meeting of the investor and the borrower could result in a settlement that cuts the servicers and other intermediaries out of the gravy train of servicing fees, foreclosures with rigged bids, etc.
  • The conflict of interest between the intermediaries and the investors might become evident, and lead to further litigation both from the investors and the SEC, state attorneys general and Department of Justice.
  • The investment vehicle (the “trust” or Special Purpose Vehicle) might have been dissolved with the investors paid off and/or with the “assets” resecuritized into a new BBB rated vehicle. This could lead to the nuclear question: what if any, is the balance due in principal on this OBLIGATION. Warning: If you let the narrative shift to the NOTE (which is merely evidence of the obligation) you risk being entrapped by the simple question “Did you make your payments under this note?” This immediately puts you on the defensive BEFORE they have established THEIR case. Since THEY are the party seeking affirmative relief, THEY should establish the foundation first.
  • And the last thing that comes to my mind is the last thing anyone wants to hear — was this obligation satisfied in whole or in part by third party payments through credit enhancements or federal bailout?

Hon. Arthur M. Schack does it again!

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v George

2010 NY Slip Op 50786(U)
Decided on May 4, 2010

Supreme Court, Kings County
Schack, J.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on May 4, 2010
Supreme Court, Kings County

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR NOMURA ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-AR4, Plaintiff,

against

Gertrude George, IVY MAY JOHNSON, GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, DANIEL S. PERLMAN, et. al., Defendants.

10865/06

Plaintiff- JP Morgan Chase Bank
Steven J Baum, PC
Amherst NY

Defendant- Gertrude George
Edward Roberts, Esq.
Brooklyn NY

Defendant- Ivy Mae Johnson
Precious L. Williams, Esq.
Brooklyn NY

Arthur M. Schack, J.

_______________________________________________

Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that the order to show cause of defendant IVY MAE JOHNSON, to vacate the January 16, 2008 judgment of foreclosure and sale for the premises located at 47 Rockaway Parkway, Brooklyn, New York (Block 4600, Lot 55, County of Kings), pursuant to CPLR Rule 5015 (a) (4), because plaintiff, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR NOMURA ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-AR4, lacked standing to commence the instant action and thus, the Court never had jurisdiction, is granted; and it is further

ORDERED, the instant complaint of plaintiff JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR NOMURA ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-AR4 for the foreclosure on the premises located at 47 Rockaway Parkway, Brooklyn, New York (Block 4600, Lot 55, County of Kings) is dismissed with prejudice.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

ENTER

___________________________

Hon. Arthur M. SchackJ. S. C..


Filed under: CASES, CORRUPTION, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, GTC | Honor, HERS, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, securities fraud, Servicer, STATUTES, trustee Tagged: Arthur M. SchackJ. S. C, Fordham Law Review, George, GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, JPM, lender, loan originator, MERS, NOMURA ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, non-judicial, originator, Precious L. Williams, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, SERIES 2004-AR4, servicer, shack, standing, Steven J Baum, trustee, vacate, Vacate foreclosure judgment
May
05

The Importance of Discovery and Motion Practice

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

Leave a Comment

Practically all the questions I get relate to how to prove the case that the loan was securitized. This is the wrong question. While it is good to have as much information about the pool a loan MIGHT BE INCLUDED, that doesn’t really answer the real question.

The real question is what is the identity of the creditor(s). The secondary question is what is owed on my obligation — not how much did I pay the servicer.

It might seem like a subtle distinction but it runs to the heart of the burden of proof. You can do all the research in the world and come up with the exact pool name that lists your property in the assets as a secured loan supporting the mortgage backed security that was issued and sold for real money to real investors.  But that will not tell you whether the loan was ever really accepted into the pool, whether it is still in the pool, or whether it is paid in whole or in part by third parties through various credit enhancement (insurance) contracts or federal bailout.

You must assume that everything is untrue. That includes the filings with the SEC. They may claim the loan is in the pool and even show an assignment. But as any first year law student will tell you there is no contract unless you have an offer AND an acceptance. If the terms of the pooling and service agreement say that the cutoff date is April 30 and the assignment is dated June 10, then by definition the loan is not in the pool unless there is some other documentation that overrides that very clear provision of the pooling and service agreement.

Even if it made it into the pool there are questions about the authenticity of the assignment, forgery and whether the pool structure was broken up (trust dissolved, or LLC dissolved) only to be broken up further into one or more new resecuritized pools. And even if that didn’t happen, someone related to this transaction most probably received payments from third parties. Were those allocated to your loan yet? Probably not. I haven’t heard about any borrower getting a letter with a new amortization schedule showing credits from insurance allocated to the principal originally due on the loan.

The pretender lenders want to direct the court’s attention to whether YOU paid your monthly payments, ignoring the fact that others have most likely made payments on your obligation. Remember every one of these isntruments derives its value from your loan. Therefore every payment on it needs to be credited to your loan whether the payment came from you or someone else. [You know all that talk about $20 billion from AIG going to Goldman Sachs? They are talking about YOUR LOAN!]

The error common to pro se litigants, lawyers and judges is that this is not a matter of proof from the borrower. The party sitting there at the other table in the courtroom with a file full of this information is the one who has it — and the burden of proof. Your case is all about the fact that the information was withheld and you want it now. That is called discovery. And it is in motion practice that you’ll either win the point or lose it. If you win the point about proceeding with discovery you have won the case.

You still need as much information as possible about the probability of securitization and the meaning it has in the context of the subject mortgage. But just because you don’t have it doesn’t mean the pretender lender has proved anything. What they have done, if they prevailed, is they blocked you from getting the information.

By rights you shouldn’t have to prove a thing about securitization where there is a foreclosure in process. By rights you should be able to demand proof they are the right people with the full accounting of all payments including receipts from insurance and credit default swaps. The confusion here emanating from Judges is that particularly in non-judicial states, since the borrower must bring the case to court in the first instance, the assumption is made that the borrower must prove a prima facie case that they don’t owe the money or that the foreclosing pretender lender is an impostor. That’s what you get when you convert a judicial issue into a non-judicial one on the basis of “judicial economy.”

In reality, the ONLY way that non-judicial statutes can be constitutionally applied is that if the borrower goes to the trouble of raising an objection by bringing the matter to court, the burden of proof MUST shift immediately to the pretender lender to show that in a judicial proceeding they can establish a prima facie case to enforce the obligation, the note and the mortgage (deed of trust). ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION WOULD UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DENY THE BORROWER THE RIGHT TO A HEARING ON THE MERITS WHEREIN THE PARTY SEEKING AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF (THAT IS THE FORECLOSING PARTY, NOT THE BORROWER) MUST PROVE THEIR CASE.


Filed under: CASES, CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, interest rates, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, Servicer, STATUTES, trustee, workshop Tagged: AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF, amortization, assignment, assumption, authenticity of the assignment, BURDEN OF PROOF, credit default swaps, credit enhancement, cutoff date, DEED OF TRUST, discovery, full accounting of all payments, identity of the creditor, insurance, judicial economy, judicial proceeding, Mortgage, Motion Practice, non-judicial statutes, note, Obligation, offer AND an acceptance, owed on my obligation, payments from third parties, pooling and service agreement, prima facie case, pro se litigants, securitization, UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Apr
19

Discovery Issues Revealed: PRINCIPAL REDUCTION IS A RIGHT NOT A GIFT – CA Class Action V BOA on TARP funds

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

Leave a Comment

REGISTER NOW FOR DISCOVERY AND MOTION PRACTICE WORKSHOP MAY 23-24

PRINCIPAL REDUCTION IS A RIGHT NOT A GIFT. IF THE OBLIGATION HAS BEEN PAID BY THIRD PARTIES, THEN THE OBLIGATION HAS ALREADY BEEN REDUCED. THE ONLY FUNCTION REMAINING IS TO DO THE ACCOUNTING.

“

There should be no doubt in your mind now that virtually none of the foreclosures processed, initiated or threatened so far have been anything other than wrong. The payments from third parties clearly reduced the principal due, might be allocable to payments that were due (thus eliminating even the delinquency status) and thus eviscerates the amount demanded by the notice of delinquency or notice of default.

Thus in addition to the fact that the wrong party is pursuing foreclosure, they are seeking to enforce an obligation that does not exist.”

Editor’s Note: This is what we cover in the upcoming workshop. Connect the dots. Recent events point out, perhaps better than I have so far, why you should press your demands for discovery. In particular identification of the creditor, the recipients of third party payments, and accounting for ALL financial transactions that refer to or are allocable to a specific pool in which your specific loan is claimed to have been pledged or transferred for sale to investors in pieces.

This lawsuit seeks to force BOA to allocate TARP funds to the pools that were referenced when TARP funds were paid. In turn, they want the money allocated to individual loans in those pools on a pro rata basis. It is simple. You can’t pick up one end of the stick without picking up the other end too.

The loans were packaged into pools that were then “processed” into multiple SPV pools, shares of which were sold to investors. Those shares “derived” their value from the loans. TARP paid 100 cents on the dollar for those shares. Thus the TARP payments were received based upon an allocation that “derived” its value from the loans. The only possible conclusion is to allocate the funds to the loans.

But that is only part of the story. TARP, TALF and other deals on a list that included insurance, and credit default swaps (synthetic derivatives) also made such payments. Those should also be allocated to the loans. Instead, BOA wants to keep the payments without applying the payments to the loans. In simple terms they their TARP and then still be able to keep eating, even though the “cake” has been paid off (consumed) by third party payments.

Now that the Goldman Sachs SEC lawsuit has been revealed, I can point out that there are other undisclosed fees, profits, and advances made that are being retained by the intermediaries in the securitization and servicing chains that should also be allocated to the loans, some of which are ALSO (as previously mentioned in recent articles posted here) subject to claims from the SEC on behalf of the investors who went “long” (i.e., who advanced money and bought these derivative shares) based upon outright lies, deception and an interstate and intercontinental scheme of fraud.

In plain language, the significance of this accounting is that if you get it, you will have proof beyond any doubt that the notice of default and notice of sale, the foreclosure suit and the demands from the servicer were all at best premature and more likely fraudulent in that they KNEW they had received payments that had paid all or part of the borrower’s obligation and which should have been allocated to the benefit of the homeowner.

There should be no doubt in your mind now that virtually none of the foreclosures processed, initiated or threatened so far have been anything other than wrong. The payments from third parties clearly reduced the principal due, might be allocable to payments that were due (thus eliminating even the delinquency status) and thus eviscerates the amount demanded by the notice of delinquency or notice of default.

Thus in addition to the fact that the wrong party is pursuing foreclosure, they are seeking to enforce an obligation that does not exist. This is a breach of the terms of the obligation as well as the pooling and service agreement.

INVESTORS TAKE NOTE: IF THE FUNDS HAD BEEN PROPERLY ALLOCATED THE LOANS WOULD STILL BE CLASSIFIED AS PERFORMING AND THE VALUE OF YOUR INVESTMENT WAS MUCH HIGHER THAN REPORTED BY THE INVESTMENT BANK. YOU TOOK A LOSS WHILE THE INVESTMENT BANK TOOK THE MONEY. THE FORECLOSURES THAT FURTHER REDUCED THE VALUE OF THE COLLATERAL WERE ILLUSORY SCHEMES CONCOCTED TO DEFLECT YOUR ATTENTION FROM THE FLOW OF FUNDS. THUS YOU TOO WERE SCREWED OVER MULTIPLE TIMES. JOINING WITH THE BORROWERS, YOU CAN RECOVER MORE OF YOUR INVESTMENT AND THEY CAN RECOVER THEIR EQUITY OR AT LEAST THE RIGHTS TO THEIR HOME.

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:35 PM, sal danna <saldanna@gmail.com> wrote:

California homeowners file class action suit against Bank of America for withholding TARP funds

Thu, 2010-04-08 11:43 — NationalMortgag…

California homeowners have filed a class action lawsuit against Bank of America claiming the lending giant is intentionally withholding government funds intended to save homeowners from foreclosure, announced the firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro. The case, filed in United States District Court in Northern California, claims that Bank of America systematically slows or thwarts California homeowners’ access to Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds by ignoring homeowners’ requests to make reasonable mortgage adjustments or other alternative solutions that would prevent homes from being foreclosed.

“We intend to show that Bank of America is acting contrary to the intent and spirit of the TARP program, and is doing so out of financial self interest,” said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.

Bank of America accepted $25 billion in government bailout money financed by taxpayer dollars earmarked to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure. One in eight mortgages in the United State is currently in foreclosure or default. Bank of America, like other TARP-funded financial institutions, is obligated to offer alternatives to foreclosure and permanently reduce mortgage payments for eligible borrowers struck by financial hardship but, according to the lawsuits, hasn’t lived up to its obligation.

According to the U.S. Treasury Department, Bank of America services more than one million mortgages that qualify for financial relief, but have granted only 12,761 of them permanent modification. Furthermore, California has one of the highest foreclosure rates in the nation for 2009 with 632,573 properties currently pending foreclosure, according to the California lawsuit.

“We contend that Bank of America has made an affirmative decision to slow the loan modification process for reasons that are solely in the bank’s financial interests,” Berman said.

The complaints note that part of Bank of America’s income is based on loans it services for other investors, fees that will drop as loan modifications are approved. The complaints also note that Bank of America would need to repurchase loans it services but has sold to other investors before it could make modifications, a cumbersome process. According to the TARP regulations, banks must gather information from the homeowner, and offer a revised three-month payment plan for the borrower. If the homeowner makes all three payments under the trial plan, and provides the necessary documentation, the lender must offer a permanent modification.

Named plaintiffs and California residents Suzanne and Greg Bayramian were forced to foreclose their home after several failed attempts to make new arrangements with Bank of America that would reduce their monthly loan payments. According to the California complaint, Bank of America deferred Bayramian’s mortgage payments for three months but failed to tell them that they would not qualify for a loan modification until 12 consecutive payments. Months later, Bank of America came back to the Bayramian family and said would arrange for a loan modification under the TARP home loan program but never followed through. The bank also refused to cooperate to a short-sale agreement saying they would go after Bayramian for the outstanding amount.

“Bank of America came up with every excuse to defer the Bayramian family from a home loan modification which forced them into foreclosure,” said Berman. “And we know from our investigation this isn’t an isolated incident.”

The lawsuits charge that Bank of America intentionally postpones homeowners’ requests to modify mortgages, depriving borrowers of federal bailout funds that could save them from foreclosure. The bank ends up reaping the financial benefits provided by taxpayer dollars financing TARP-funds and also collects higher fees and interest rates associated with stressed home loans.

For more information, visit www.hbsslaw.com.


Filed under: CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, Servicer, STATUTES, workshop Tagged: accounting, allocation of payments, and advances, Bank of America, CALIFORNIA, creditor, delinquency status, discovery, foreclosure suit, foreclosures, Goldman Sachs, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, INVESTORS TAKE NOTE, Notice of Default, Notice of Sale, Obligation, payments, pool, principal reduction, profits, sale to investors, SEC, SPV pools, Steve Berman, TARP, TARP regulations, third party payments, undisclosed fees
Apr
18

Allocating Bailout to YOUR LOAN

By | Federal Reserve, Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

Leave a Comment

Editor’s Note: Here is the problem. As I explained to a Judge last week, if Aunt Alice pays off my obligation then the fact that someone still has the note is irrelevant. The note is unenforceable and should be returned as paid. That is because the note is EVIDENCE of the obligation, it isn’t THE obligation. And by the way the note is only one portion of the evidence of the obligation in a securitized loan. Using the note as the only evidence in a securitized loan is like paying for groceries with sea shells. They were once currency in some places, but they don’t go very far anymore.

The obligation rises when the money is funded to the borrower and extinguished when the creditor receives payment — regardless of who they receive the payment from (pardon the grammar).

The Judge agreed. (He had no choice, it is basic black letter law that is irrefutable). But his answer was that Aunt Alice wasn’t in the room saying she had paid the obligation. Yes, I said, that is right. And the reason is that we don’t know the name of Aunt Alice, but only that she exists and that she paid. And the reason that we don’t know is that the opposing side who DOES know Aunt Alice, won’t give us the information, even though the attorney for the borrower has been asking for it formally and informally through discovery for 9 months.

I should mention here that it was a motion for lift stay which is the equivalent of a motion for summary judgment. While Judges have discretion about evidence, they can’t make it up. And while legal presumptions apply the burden on the moving party in a motion to lift stay is to remove any conceivable doubt that they are the creditor, that the obligation is correctly stated and to do so through competent witnesses and authenticated business records, documents, recorded and otherwise. All motions for lift stay should be denied frankly because of thee existence of multiple stakeholders and the existence of multiple claims. Unless the motion for lift stay is predicated on proceeding with a judicial foreclosure, the motion for lift stay is the equivalent of circumventing due process and the right to be heard on the merits.

But I was able to say that the the PSA called for credit default swaps to be completed by the cutoff date and that obviously they have been paid in whole or in part. And I was able to say that AMBAC definitely made payments on this pool, but that the opposing side refused to allocate them to this loan. Now we have the FED hiding the payments it made on these pools enabling the opposing side (pretender lenders) to claim that they would like to give us the information but the Federal reserve won’t let them because there is an agreement not to disclose for 10 years notwithstanding the freedom of information act.

So we have Aunt Alice, Uncle Fred, Mom and Dad all paying the creditor thus reducing the obligation to nothing but the servicer, who has no knowledge of those payments, won’t credit them against the obligation because the servicer is only counting the payments from the debtor. And so the pretender lenders come in and foreclose on properties where they know third party payments have been made but not allocated and claim the loan is in default when some or all of the loan has been repaid.

Thus the loan is not in default, but borrowers and their lawyers are conceding the default. DON’T CONCEDE ANYTHING. ALLEGE PAYMENT EVEN THOUGH IT DIDN’T COME FROM THE DEBTOR.

This is why you need to demand an accounting and perhaps the appointment of a receiver. Because if the servicer says they can’t get the information then the servicer is admitting they can’t do the job. So appoint an accountant or some other receiver to do the job with subpoena power from the court.

Practice Hint: If you let them take control of the narrative and talk about the note, you have already lost. The note is not the obligation. Your position is that part or all of the obligation has been paid, that you have an expert declaration computing those payments as close as  possible using what information has been released, published or otherwise available, and that the pretender lenders either refuse or failed to credit the debtor with payments from third party sources —- credit default swaps, insurance and other guarantees paid for out of the proceeds of the loan transaction, PLUS the federal bailout from TARP, TALF, Maiden Lane deals, and the Federal reserve.

The Judge may get stuck on the idea of giving a free house, but how many times is he going to require the obligation to be paid off before the homeowner gets credit for the issuance that was was paid for out of the proceeds of the borrowers transaction with the creditor?

Fed Shouldn’t Reveal Crisis Loans, Banks Vow to Tell High Court

By Bob Ivry

April 14 (Bloomberg) — The biggest U.S. commercial banks will take their fight against disclosure of Federal Reserve lending in 2008 to the Supreme Court if necessary, the top lawyer for an industry-owned group said.

Continued legal appeals will delay or block the first public look at details of the central bank’s $2 trillion in emergency lending during the 2008 financial crisis. The Clearing House Association LLC, a group that includes Bank of America Corp. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., joined the Fed in defense of a lawsuit brought by Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, seeking release of records related to four Fed lending programs.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled March 19 that the central bank must release the documents. A three-judge panel of the appellate court rejected the Fed’s argument that disclosure would stigmatize borrowers and discourage banks from seeking emergency help.

“Our member banks are very concerned about real-time disclosure of information that could cause a run on the banks,” said Paul Saltzman, the group’s general counsel, in an interview yesterday. “We’re not going to let the Second Circuit opinion stand without seeking a review.”

Regardless of whether the Fed appeals, the Clearing House will take the next legal step by asking for a review by the full appellate court, Saltzman, 49, said at his office in New York. If the ruling is unfavorable, the bank group will petition the Supreme Court, he said.

Joined Lawsuit

The 157-year-old, New York-based Clearing House Payments Co., which processes transactions among banks, is owned by its 20 members. They include Citigroup Inc., Bank of New York Mellon Corp., Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC Holdings Plc, PNC Financial Services Group Inc., UBS AG, U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Co.

The Clearing House Association, a lobbying group with the same members, joined the lawsuit in September 2009, after an initial ruling against the central bank in federal court in Manhattan.

The Fed is “reviewing the decision and considering our options,” said Fed spokesman David Skidmore in Washington. He had no comment on Saltzman’s plans.

Attorneys face a May 3 deadline to file their appeals.

“We’ll wait to see the motion papers,” said Thomas Golden, attorney for Bloomberg who is a partner at New York- based Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP. “The judges’ decision was well-reasoned, and we doubt further appeals will yield a different result.”

Bloomberg sued in November 2008 under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, after the Fed denied access to records of four Fed lending programs and a loan the central bank made in connection with New York-based JPMorgan Chase’s acquisition of Bear Stearns Cos. in March 2008.

231 Pages

The central bank contends that 231 pages of daily reports summarizing lending activity, which were prepared by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for the Fed Board of Governors in Washington, aren’t covered by the FOIA. The statute obliges federal agencies to make government documents available to the press and the public. The suit doesn’t seek money damages.

The Fed released lists on March 31 of assets it acquired in the 2008 bailout of Bear Stearns.

The New York Times Co., the Associated Press and Dow Jones & Co., publisher of the Wall Street Journal, are among media companies that have signed up as friends of the court in support of Bloomberg.

The Fed Board of Governors’ “refusal to disclose the names of borrowers renders public oversight of its actions impossible — it prevents any assessment of the effectiveness of the Board’s actions and conceals any collusion, corruption, fraud or abuse that might have occurred,” the news organizations said in a letter to the appeals panel.

The case is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 09-04083, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (New York).

To contact the reporter on this story: Bob Ivry in New York at bivry@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: April 14, 2010 00:01 EDT


Filed under: foreclosure Tagged: 09-04083, accounting, AMbac, appointment of a receiver, Aunt Alice, authenticated business records, Bank of America Corp, Bank of New York Mellon Corp, banks, Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, bloomberg.net., Bob Ivry, Citigroup Inc, Clearing House Association, Clearing House Payments Co, competent witnesses, conceivable doubt, credit default swaps, crisis, Deutsche Bank AG, evidence of the obligation, Fed, Freedom of Information Act, HERS, High Court, HSBC Holdings Plc, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Maiden Lane, MERS, motion for lift stay, Obligation, Paul Saltzman, PNC Financial Services Group Inc, proceeds of the borrowers transaction, PSA, receiver, Saltzman, servicers, summary judgment, TALF, TARP, The Clearing House Association LLC, The New York Times, third party sources, Thomas Golden, U.S. Bancorp, U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan, UBS AG, Wells Fargo & Co, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LL
Apr
13

Lehman dissection provides clues for discovery and motion practice

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

Leave a Comment

Challenge everything, assume nothing. The chances are that through this shadow banking system, your loan was paid in whole or in part through third party insurers, counterparties, federal bailout etc. Without an accounting from the CREDITOR, there is no basis for claiming a default. What the other side is doing is centering in on the note, which is only part of a string of evidence about the obligation in securitized debt. Your position is that you want ALL the evidence, so you can identify the CREDITOR,and pursuant to Federal and State law, either pay, settle, modify or litigate the case if you have legitimate defenses. You can’t do that if the party you are fighting has no power to execute a satisfaction of mortgage or release and reconveyance.
April 12, 2010

Lehman Channeled Risks Through ‘Alter Ego’ Firm

By LOUISE STORY and ERIC DASH

It was like a hidden passage on Wall Street, a secret channel that enabled billions of dollars to flow through Lehman Brothers.

In the years before its collapse, Lehman used a small company — its “alter ego,” in the words of a former Lehman trader — to shift investments off its books.

The firm, called Hudson Castle, played a crucial, behind-the-scenes role at Lehman, according to an internal Lehman document and interviews with former employees. The relationship raises new questions about the extent to which Lehman obscured its financial condition before it plunged into bankruptcy.

While Hudson Castle appeared to be an independent business, it was deeply entwined with Lehman. For years, its board was controlled by Lehman, which owned a quarter of the firm. It was also stocked with former Lehman employees.

None of this was disclosed by Lehman, however.

Entities like Hudson Castle are part of a vast financial system that operates in the shadows of Wall Street, largely beyond the reach of banking regulators. These entities enable banks to exchange investments for cash to finance their operations and, at times, make their finances look stronger than they are.

Critics say that such deals helped Lehman and other banks temporarily transfer their exposure to the risky investments tied to subprime mortgages and commercial real estate. Even now, a year and a half after Lehman’s collapse, major banks still undertake such transactions with businesses whose names, like Hudson Castle’s, are rarely mentioned outside of footnotes in financial statements, if at all.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is examining various creative borrowing tactics used by some 20 financial companies. A Congressional panel investigating the financial crisis also plans to examine such deals at a hearing in May to focus on Lehman and Bear Stearns, according to two people knowledgeable about the panel’s plans.

Most of these deals are legal. But certain Lehman transactions crossed the line, according to the account of the bank’s demise prepared by an examiner of the bank. Hudson Castle was not mentioned in that report, released last month, which concluded that some of Lehman’s bookkeeping was “materially misleading.” The report did not say that Hudson was involved in the misleading accounting.

At several points, Lehman did transactions greater than $1 billion with Hudson vehicles, but it is unclear how much money was involved since 2001.

Still, accounting experts say the shadow financial system needs some sunlight.

“How can anyone — regulators, investors or anyone — understand what’s in these financial statements if they have to dig 15 layers deep to find these kinds of interlocking relationships and these kinds of transactions?” said Francine McKenna, an accounting consultant who has examined the financial crisis on her blog, re: The Auditors. “Everybody’s talking about preventing the next crisis, but they can’t prevent the next crisis if they don’t understand all these incestuous relationships.”

The story of Lehman and Hudson Castle begins in 2001, when the housing bubble was just starting to inflate. That year, Lehman spent $7 million to buy into a small financial company, IBEX Capital Markets, which later became Hudson Castle.

From the start, Hudson Castle lived in Lehman’s shadow. According to a 2001 memorandum given to The New York Times, as well as interviews with seven former employees at Lehman and Hudson Castle, Lehman exerted an unusual level of control over the firm. Lehman, the memorandum said, would serve “as the internal and external ‘gatekeeper’ for all business activities conducted by the firm.”

The deal was proposed by Kyle Miller, who worked at Lehman. In the memorandum, Mr. Miller wrote that Lehman’s investment in Hudson Castle would give the bank and its clients access to financing while preventing “headline risk” if any of its deals went south. It would also reduce Lehman’s “moral obligation” to support its off-balance sheet vehicles, he wrote. The arrangement would maximize Lehman’s control over Hudson Castle “without jeopardizing the off-balance sheet accounting treatment.”

Mr. Miller became president of Hudson Castle and brought several Lehman employees with him. Through a Hudson Castle spokesman, Mr. Miller declined a request for an interview.

The spokesman did not dispute the 2001 memorandum but said the relationship with Lehman had evolved. After 2004, “all funding decisions at Hudson Castle were solely made by the management team and neither the board of directors nor Lehman Brothers participated in or influenced those decisions in any way,” he said, adding that Lehman was only a tenth of Hudson’s revenue.

Still, Lehman never told its shareholders about the arrangement. Nor did Moody’s choose to mention it in its credit ratings reports on Hudson Castle’s vehicles. Former Lehman workers, who spoke on the condition that they not be named because of confidentiality agreements with the bank, offered conflicting accounts of the bank’s relationship with Hudson Castle.

One said Lehman bought into Hudson Castle to compete with the big commercial banks like Citigroup, which had a greater ability to lend to corporate clients. “There were no bad intentions around any of this stuff,” this person said.

But another former employee said he was leery of the arrangement from the start. “Lehman wanted to have a company it controlled, but to the outside world be able to act like it was arm’s length,” this person said.

Typically, companies are required to disclose only material investments or purchases of public companies. Hudson Castle was neither.

Nonetheless, Hudson Castle was central to some Lehman deals up until the bank collapsed.

“This should have been disclosed, given how critical this relationship was,” said Elizabeth Nowicki, a professor at Boston University and a former lawyer at the S.E.C. “Part of the problems with all these bank failures is there were a lot of secondary actors — there were lawyers, accountants, and here you have a secondary company that was helping conceal the true state of Lehman.”

Until 2004, Hudson had an agreement with Lehman that blocked it from working with the investment bank’s competitors, but in 2004, that deal ended, and Lehman reduced its number of board seats to one, from five, according to two people with direct knowledge of the situation and an internal Hudson Castle document. Lehman remained Hudson’s largest shareholder, and its management remained close to important Lehman officials.

Hudson Castle created at least four separate legal entities to borrow money in the markets by issuing short-term i.o.u.’s to investors. It then used that money to make loans to Lehman and other financial companies, often via repurchase agreements, or repos. In repos, banks typically sell assets and promise to buy them back at a set price in the future.

One of the vehicles that Hudson Castle created was called Fenway, which was often used to lend to Lehman, including in the summer of 2008, as the investment bank foundered. Because of that relationship, Hudson Castle is now the second-largest creditor in the Lehman Estate, after JPMorgan Chase. Hudson Castle, which is still in business, doing similar work for other banks, bought out Lehman’s stake last year. The firm’s spokesman said Hudson operated independently in the Fenway deal in the summer of 2008.

Hudson Castle might have walked away earlier if not for Fenway’s ties to Lehman. Lehman itself bought $3 billion of Fenway notes just before its bankruptcy that, in turn, were used to back a loan from Fenway to a Lehman subsidiary. The loan was secured by part of Lehman’s investment in a California property developer, SunCal, which also collapsed. At the time, other lenders were already growing uneasy about dealing with Lehman.

Further complicating the arrangement, Lehman later pledged those Fenway notes to JPMorgan as collateral for still other loans as Lehman began to founder. When JPMorgan realized the circular relationship, “JPMorgan concluded that Fenway was worth practically nothing,” according the report prepared by the court examiner of Lehman.


Filed under: CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, foreclosure, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: accounting, creditor, DEBTOR, discovery, enforcement of obligation, Lehman, motino practice, Obligation, unsecured obligationunsecured note
Apr
06

DISCOVERY AND MOTION PRACTICE: SHOW ME THE BOND

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

Leave a Comment

REGISTER NOW FOR DISCOVERY AND MOTION PRACTICE WORKSHOP

SHOW ME THE BOND!: 9th CIRCUIT AFFIRMS BACKDOOR REQUIREMENT FOR ENHANCED “CREDITOR” DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS IN CHAPTER 13 PLAN: SEE chapter 13 debtorsHerrera Monroy opinion 09-1175 (9th Cir BAP 01 05 2010)

Among the things we will cover at the May workshop on Motion Practice and Discovery, are the many ways the pretender lender lenders are obfuscating the truth. Practitioners and litigants need to know the progression of building a case and the progression of presenting a case. They are not the same thing. Pleading-Motions-Hearings-Argument-Exhibits-Raising Issues of Fact- Discovery-Evidentiary hearings is the rough order of things while lawyers may have stylistic differences. Here are your bullet points when you go to court:

  • The money for the funding of the borrower’s loan came from the investor. Thus the borrower is or at least was the debtor and the investor is or at least was the creditor. In old style transactions the borrower would sign a note and it would be kept by the bank that gave him the loan. Why? Because the note was evidence, presumptively correct of the terms of the obligation that came into existence when the borrower accepted the benefits of the funding of the loan.
  • If the borrower did not execute a note, the obligation would still exist, if the borrower accepted the benefit of the funding the loan.
  • If the bank did not fund the loan, the note would not be evidence of any obligation, because there was no obligation. Signing a note does not create the obligation. It is the monetary transaction — the transfer of actual money — that gives rise to the transaction.
  • In securitized residential mortgages, the borrower signs a note which is conveyed to the investor as the lender by way of a mortgage backed bond. Hence the evidence of the holder of the note is in the bond.
  • The only place to start is where the bond was issued and to see the bond that conveyed the ownership interest in the loan pool to the investor.
  • So you want them to produce all the mortgage backed bonds that conveyed an ownership interest in the pool. Without the bond there is no evidence of who owns the note.
  • Remember the terms of the bond: (1) conditional non-recourse payment of interest; (2) conditional non-recourse payment of principal; and (3) conditional non-recourse conveyance of the borrower’s note. The SPV that issued the bond is not the actual Payor or obligor on the Bond. The mortgage backed bond is strictly dependent upon the various conditions, provisions and terms contained in the indenture, prospectus, pooling and service agreement and assignment and assumption agreement.
  • Hence legally the note is “given” to the investor both as collateral and as owner for the obligation acquired when the investor advanced funds to purchase these unregistered securities.
  • The reason why “show me the note” is so powerful is that 40% of them were destroyed and the pleaders have no credible story to explain why or when (key elements in establishing a “lost instrument”).  But the reason it creates a trap door for borrowers is that 60% of the time they do have the note, or they create one using advanced color copying and printing technology off of copies. So if you don’t know the story behind securitization and the litigation tools — motions, discovery, compelling answers, use of qualified written requests etc. you are left with your mouth hanging open.
  • Since you know the loan has a 96% statistical probability of having been securitized, you know that an investor funded it, you have a forensic analysis and expert declaration to support and corroborate your pleading and argument, and a question of fact exists as to how and when the investor received and/or parted with possession of the note and under what circumstances.
  • The only way then that the transaction can be completely presented in court or out of court is for the them to show you the note AND SHOW YOU THE BOND WITH THE INVESTOR’S NAME ON IT. This requires a request to produce the minute books, trustee’s records and actual copies of the certificates, or failing that the names, addresses and contact information of the investor, so you can get a copy from them and find out if they still have it or if they ever had it.
  • You may find they never received the note. You may find that the “depositor” or “trustee” or any other “entity in the securitization chain either never received the note or doesn’t have it anymore. That doesn’t mean the obligation is dead. It means that the two pieces of evidence of the obligation are deed and the court has the power to reform the transaction into what “the parties” (i,e, the real parties) intended.
  • But it also means that if the investor, his agents, servants or employees or servicers or affiliates have received payoffs from insurance, credit default swaps or otherwise that the obligation would of necessity be correspondingly reduced. The corroboration of the existence of the likely reduction is the current opinion evidence and allegation that the entire transaction was based upon fraud — inflated appraisal of the property, inflated rating of the mortgage, inflated appraisal of the mortgage backed bond and inflated rating of the collateral resulting in the issuance of a fictitious security without the collateralization upon which both the borrower and the investor relied.
  • And the last point for today’s “lesson” is that you are entitled to the same presumptions that your allegations are true as they are — nothing more and nothing less. So you better know how to plead, and how to argue when you’re dealing with a presumption of credibility in the brand name of a big bank and a judge who isn’t interested in complex theories. That’s why your argument boils down to “show me the BOND.”
  • So don’t try to win the whole case in the first or even the 10th motion hearing. You should use each hearing as an opportunity to educate the Judge on a little more of securitization and plan out your educational curriculum, demonstrative exhibits, affidavits, declarations, and forensic analysis reports.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, Servicer, workshop Tagged: actual Payor or obligor on the Bond, argument, conditional non-recourse conveyance of the borrower's note, conditional non-recourse payment of interest, conditional non-recourse payment of principal, DISCOVERY AND MOTION PRACTICE, elements in establishing a "lost instrument, expert declaration, forensic analysis, HERS, request to produce the minute books, securitized, show me the BOND, trustee's records and actual copies of the certificates, unregistered securities
Mar
14

Signing New Docs Creates New Loan and Waives Prior Defenses

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

Leave a Comment

Question from blogger:

In an awkward position and can’t seem to get a straight answer.  We refinanced our property in 2006 and in 2009 received a letter from the title insurers requesting we re-sign all docs.  The note is lost and was never recorded with the county.  I can’t find precedent in such a case and am unsure if quiet title action is the course to pursue.

Any thoughts?

Sounds to me that there are obvious title defects, that the title agent is worried about liability and that the ability of ANY mortgagee to enforce the note and mortgage is in doubt or maybe impossible. Don’t give up your superior position until you speak to a lawyer who understands securitization and mortgages.

It is possible that you don’t have a note or mortgage but that doesn’t mean you have no obligation. If they want to re-establish the formal documentation the burden should be on them, not you. Press the point aggressively since you appear to be in position to demand a very favorable settlement.


Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: county recorder, lost note, recordation, title agent, title insurance
Newer Posts »
Website Designed and Developed by Tampa Web Designer