Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
Thanks Lane for sharing these. Now I have better understanding of how
Trust, PSA, Mortgage Loan Schedule, Remic, Fraudulent Assignment tied together.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Lane Hook,  Loan Forensic Expert

I was deposed back in September by an attorney for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company on a New Jersey foreclosure case I worked on and rendered an Affidavit of Expert Opinion. Attached is the Deposition if you are interested in reading. Feel free to pass it on to anyone you see fit or to post on any of your blogs/sites, etc. It sure was fun in this deposition. I walked in with the PSA and Prospectus read through and through, flagged and color coded in multiple spots, etc. Of course the transcript does not tell the whole story but if you could have seen the attorney you would have laughed... he got visibly frustrated and flustered several times... head buried in his hands at least once, etc. It was quite entertaining.  

The judge in this case used my Affidavit as the core reason for denying summary judgment and moving the case to trial. Trial is still pending right now.

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/42266584/Lane-Hook-Executed-Affidavit-and-Exhibits

http://www.scribd.com/doc/42266359/Deposition-Lane-Houk-Loan-Forensic-Expert-Witness-Deutsche-Bank-v-Dennis 

Here’s a short link to the blog post I created for this: http://wp.me/pB9vc-46k - the blog post has all documents attached for download right in the post along with a more recent (and advanced) affidavit. With the help of a few attorneys, my work and final affidavit structure is getting better, more concise, etc. 

Be well and keep up the great work everyone. 

Lane Houk, CLA

National Institute of Consumer Advocacy, LLC

MBS Analyst - Mortgage Loan & Fraud Investigator
Direct: (800) 985-4685 ext. 111  I  eFax: (800) 985-4685  I   http://www.thePatriotsWar.com
5668 FishHawk Crossing Blvd. | # 109 | Lithia, FL 33547

 

Quote 0 0
Texas

PTVEPI  (Paper Tangible) v (Electronic Payment Intangibles)

To understand the chain of ownership we shall start with, what do the investors own?

 

A large institutional investor could own an Investment Vehicle in its entirety while a lesser degree investor along with many other investors would own proportional beneficial interests in the “Investment Vehicle”.

 

The “Investment Vehicle” owns the electronic intangible “Certificate”, ownership of the “Certificate” is tracked and registered within an electronic book entry computer system. One common tracking system is by Cede & Company where DTC is considered the custodian of the electronic intangible “Certificate”.

 

ESIGN, UETA and Revised UCC Article 9 provide the legal guidance for electronic intangible “Certificate”.

 

The “Certificate” is the owner and holder of the electronic “Payment Intangible” where the electronic “Payment Intangible” is the right to collect payments provided for in the “Underlying Collateral”.

 

ESIGN, UETA and Revised UCC Article 9 provide the legal guidance for electronic “Payment Intangible”. Revised UCC Article 9 provides that perfection of rights to the electronic “Payment Intangible” is automatically transferred to a subsequent purchaser of the “Certificates”.

 

The electronic “Payment Intangible” is the owner and holder of the “Underlying Collateral” where the “Underlying Collateral” is the “Paper Tangible Note (Homeowner’s Promissory Note)” and the “Paper Tangible Security Instrument” (Homeowner’s Security Instrument).

 

The “Paper Tangible Note” is under governance of UCC Article 3 or the states equivalence while the “Paper Tangible Security Instrument” are subject to laws of local jurisdiction as UCC Article 9 defers governance, such local laws of jurisdiction is also noted within the “Paper Tangible Security Instrument”.

 

ESIGN and UETA both exclude governance over items governed by UCC Article 3 & 9 in respect to the “Paper Tangible Note” and the “Paper Tangible Security Instrument”.

 

In reverse hierarchy, if ownership in the “Certificate” or the “Payment Intangible” changes then ownership of the “Underlying Collateral” has changed and such changes should be timely memorialized in public records to transfer perfection of lien rights to a subsequent purchaser of the “Certificate”, “Payment Intangible” or the “Paper Tangible Security Instrument”.

 

Failure to memorialize the negotiation of the “Paper Tangible Note” to a subsequent purchaser, by timely filing an assignment of the mortgage to transfer lien rights would render the security instrument a nullity.

 

The U S Supreme Court in Sheldon v Sill, 49 U.S. 441 (How.), The assignment of the mortgage, without an assignment of the debt, is a nullity.” One needs to question, how does MERS execute an assignment of mortgage as not being owner/holder of the “Note”?

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...