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

Quote 0 0
Sorry for the blank post....

http://www.secinfo.com/dqTm6.z4r.htm?#5nr

The above is the prospectus of a sercuritized mortgage trust.

The summary of Prospectus supplement gives the Cut-off Date as of 1/1/05...

Does that mean that no mortgages could be pooled into this trust after that date?

In other words, Can a mortgage dated 3/23/05 be part of this trust?


Thanks

YIC

Adam

Quote 0 0
Adam
ok... I screwed that up.... wrong trust...

Found the right one... the cut off date is correct...

But take a look at this...
Quote:

The depositor will, with respect to each mortgage asset, deliver or
cause to be delivered to the trustee, or to the custodian hereinafter referred
to:

o  With respect to each mortgage loan, (1) the mortgage note endorsed,
without recourse, to the order of the trustee or in blank, (2) the
original Mortgage with evidence of recording indicated thereon and
an assignment of the Mortgage to the trustee or in blank, in
recordable form. If, however, a mortgage loan has not yet been
returned from the public recording office, the depositor will
deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the Mortgage together
with its certificate that the original of the Mortgage was delivered
to the recording office. The depositor will promptly cause the
assignment of each related mortgage loan to be recorded in the
appropriate public office for real property records, except for
Mortgages held under the MERS(R) System and except in the State of
California or in other states where, in the opinion of counsel
acceptable to the trustee, recording of the assignment is not
required to protect the trustee's interest in the mortgage loan
against the claim of any subsequent transferee or any successor to
or creditor of the depositor, the master servicer, the relevant
mortgage loan seller or any other prior holder of the mortgage loan.
If the depositor uses the MERS(R) System, it will deliver evidence
that the Mortgage is held for the trustee through the MERS(R) System
instead of an assignment of the Mortgage in recordable form.


Little background... MERS dn appear anywhere in the forclosure paperwork or the info filed with the county... Property is in Michigan..

Does the above section of the PSA, force the assignment of mortgage to be filed upon distribution of the certificates... ie when the trust was formed?

tia

YIC

Adam

Quote 0 0
The Equitable One
This is my simple lay understanding.

Many/most PSAs make the trusts subject to the laws of New York.  Not all trusts. You'll have to look for a section relating to "Governing Law; Jurisdiction," or similar.

Many/most PSAs also have language that clearly defines the time line for conveyance of assets into the associated trust.

So, any attempted transfer of a mortgage loan into the trust must be judged by New York Law.

What does New York law have to say about this?

“If the trust is expressed in the instrument creating the estate of the trustee, every sale, conveyance, or other act of the trustee in contravention of the trust, except as authorized by this article and by any other provision of law, is void.”  McKinney ’s Consolidated Law of New York Annotated, estates Powers and Trust Laws § 7-2.4 (2003); see Allison & Ver Valen Co. v. McNee, 9 N.Y.S.2d 708 (N.Y. Sur. 1939).   

So, if the time of conveyance of instruments into a trust subject to New York laws violates the provisions of that trust the conveyance is void.


   


Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
Adam said:
Does the above section of the PSA, force the assignment of mortgage to be filed upon distribution of the certificates... ie when the trust was formed?


The provisions of most mortgage trusts expressly contemplate the transfer of the mortgage collateral -- the negotiation of the promissory notes and assignment of the mortgage -- to coincide with the trust closing date and the trustee typically exchanges the trust certificates for the mortgage collateral in a transaction with the so-called "depositor".  Look to the language of the trust instrument for the specific requirements.

Be aware, though, that almost every trust also includes express language which provides that if a particular mortgage loan is found NOT to conform to the lending and/or underwriting requirements or to be ineligible for inclusion, that such loan might be subject to repurchase OR EXCHANGE for another similar mortgage which meets the requirements.  So the idea that the trust indenture does NOT allow for a later transfer into the trust (as an exchange) is usually flat WRONG as to the facts of the trust indenture language and the law.

Such exchanges are uncommon, but NOT unheard of.  And this is particularly the case where a loan quickly falls into default.  But note that the exchange would be that of the substitution of a performing mortgage for a non-performing (defaulted) mortgage.  So if the plaintiff is representing to the court that YOUR mortgage was substituted INTO THE POOL after it was in default, this is almost certainly NEVER the case.

You might want to consider adding some discovery questions which expressly ask whether this loan was transferred into the trust by exchange.  And you also might want to obtain an admission that the loan was already in default at the date of the alleged transfer.

It is also very important that you understand that for all of the MISINFORMATION about the mechanics of the transaction you describe, the simple fact is that the assignment does NOT actually reflect a belated transfer into the trust.  Rather, it REALLY reflects the forgery of an assignment created solely for use as FALSE EVIDENCE in your case.

The trouble is RARELY that the trust didn't actually purchase and receive the mortgage at trust closing.  Rather, the plaintiff has a PROOF PROBLEM proving that this transfer took place and prefers to FABRICATE evidence rather than seeking to prove its ownership with reference to the actual extant documents. 

Quote 0 0
Angelo
I would be very careful how you ask, in discovery, if the loan was in default.  Becareful not to admit on your end that it is in default.

Bill
I agree that it is about fabrication of evidence for the court, but a countrywide exec. has stated on the record that it was their policy to keep the notes and not transfer them to the trust when they should have.  So if delivery wasnt done before the closing date or 90 days thereafter, then the securitization as per the PSA wasn't effecuated properly.

The concept of transfers of mortgages into the trust after the closing date for the purpose of "switching out" would never hold in a foreclosure proceeding, because like you stated, most loans were allegedly in default and most assignments were done a week before the summons and complaints were filed. 

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
Angelo said:
I agree that it is about fabrication of evidence for the court, but a countrywide exec. has stated on the record that it was their policy to keep the notes and not transfer them to the trust when they should have.  So if delivery wasnt [sic] done before the closing date or 90 days thereafter, then the securitization as per the PSA wasn't effecuated [sic] properly.


Angelo:

Bank of America management has expressly disavowed the sworn testimony of its witness in In Re Kemp and essentially stated that the witness was misinformed.  Of course, that eviscerates her credibility as a witness testifying based upon personal knowledge.

Of course, the Countrywide/BOA witness were always perjuring themselves and simply testifying as to whatever the foreclosure mill law firm told them to say.  Here the witness just got very confused as to what she was supposed to be lying about!

But when faced with an investor backlash against the consequences of these false averments, the bank backtracked.
Quote 0 0
Angelo
The executives can disavow all they want in the media and it means nothing, its her testimony thats on record, not their media propaganda.  She was on the stand and told the truth, it wasn't misinformation, they just didnt like that one of their own told the truth! And now they are in damage control mode....to bad, so sad, bye bye.....


Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
Angelo said:
The executives can disavow all they want in the media and it means nothing, its her testimony thats on record, not their media propaganda.  She was on the stand and told the truth, it wasn't misinformation, they just didnt like that one of their own told the truth! And now they are in damage control mode....to bad, so sad, bye bye.....


Angelo:

This is just UTTER NONSENSE!  Your assertion that the perjured testimony of Countrywide's witness was actually TRUE reflects the fact the you have swallowed the koolaid that the industry has been handing out for the past five years!

The assertion that the originator and servicer KEPT the promissory notes rather than delivering these to the mortgage investor is just totally FALSE.  And if you BUY INTO THAT STORY and rely upon it, you will almost surely LOSE when the contrary is proven when your case comes to trial.

I think that it is terrific that Mr. Kemp will be getting a FREE HOUSE!  But if YOU want to craft your pleadings and design your discovery in view of this false paradigm, your prospects are dim indeed.

It is better to fully understand and appreciate the true contours of the battleground if you want to identify a strong defensive position.
Quote 0 0
Angelo
Bill

I dont understand your position, why would a witness for countrywide perjure herself in favor of the homeowner.  What industry was handing out this so called koolaid? The banks or other foreclosure defense attorneys?

Because im missing something then, if im not mistaken this is the same industry that was screaming she was lying!

Obviously there are some very smart lawyers that feel this might have been the case, because there are now some major lawsuits that allege something went wrong with this whole securitization model.  It also touched a nerve with somebody because they(countrywide) tried to declare their own witness as hostile.

And im not relying my discovery or pleading on this at all, just having a discussion as to what might have occured. 
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
Angelo said:
Obviously there are some very smart lawyers that feel this might have been the case, because there are now some major lawsuits that allege something went wrong with this whole securitization model.


Angelo:

There are some very smart lawyers doing foreclosure defense advocacy who (a) HAVE NEVER WORKED IN THE MORTGAGE INDUSTRY AND ARE UNFAMILIAR WITH ROUTINE BUSINESS PRACTICES, and (b) are too busy litigating to make a thorough study of readily available PUBLIC DATA which can be found in (i) publicly recorded land records and (ii) publicly filed documents in other mortgage case files.

When one carefully studies the data, very conspicuous PATTERNS emerge.

One of the things that these lawyers have found to be baffling because it is so dissonnant is WHY the plaintiffs would be engaging in routine and daily forgery, evidence fabrication and perjury in support of foreclosure cases IF ACTUAL EVIDENCE EXISTED TO SUPPORT THE PLAINTIFF's CASE.

Because it seems IRRATIONAL that the plaintiffs would engage in criminality to advance their case they reason, INCORRECTLY, that the problem must be that the original documents are defective or that the securitization transfers never took place.  Of course, that is what they are HOPING TO FIND.  Because if the negotiation was defective then the defendant has a much stronger case.

The belated assignments are therefore viewed as documents which have been created to make the conveyance which was never originally made.

That is, they are adopting the charitable view that the belated conveyance is actually REAL and are therefore seeking to find defects in the belated conveyance.

But the ugly truth is that these assignments are NOT real at all.  They are, instead, bald forgeries.  Documents which purport to memorialize transactions which NEVER TOOK PLACE.  The assignments are BALD FORGERIES.

Think about the testimony of the BOA witness through the following prism.  If the original negotiation was defective, then the subsequent efforts to execute documents could be described a corrective in nature.  That is, upon noting a failure to properly convey, the necessary assignment was prepared and executed (leaving aside for now the actual authority of the persons who purport to execute these documents).  In this paradigm, the assignment is possibly legitimate, but LATE.  And this gives rise to the various arguments advanced by the likes of Mr. Adam LEVITIN that this LATE CONVEYANCE might be invalid.

What I am telling you is that the assignments are FAR MORE SINISTER.  They are BALD FORGERIES which do NOT describe a belated transfer.  Rather, they are fabricated SOLELY FOR USE AS FALSE EVIDENCE IN COURT.  This isn't a matter of someone creating something possible invalid or ineffective.  This is a matter of DELIBERATE CRIMIAL FORGERY of documents which reflect NO ECONOMIC REALITY AT ALL.  They are SOLELY for SHOW.  And their pleading is a CRIMINAL matter.

If the BOA witness' testimony was actually CORRECT, this would ABSOLVE the BOA employees of their criminal responsibility.  They are merely creating the necessary assignments to CORRECT the prior errors.  But this also ADMITS the existence of widespread prior errors (the securitization problem).

By contrast, if all of the securitizations WERE DONE CORRECTLY, then HOW can you explain and harmonize the appearance of the belated assignments?  The answer is quite simple.  YOU CANNOT.  The belated assignment does NOT reflect some belated transfer.  It is a pure and utter forgery!
Quote 0 0
Adam
Ok...filed lawsuit yesterday against.. Park Place Securities, Argent Mortgage, BAC home loan servicing, Wells Fargo, Trott and Trott (a foreclosure mill) and the Asst VP of BAC that signed the "Assignement of Mortgage" as a Asst VP of Argent Mtg

Here is the meat of the Compliant

Quote:

16. Defendant(s) perpetrated a fraudulent conveyance in assigning the Mortgage on September 13, 2010 for the sole purpose of foreclosing on said property.


17. Mortgage was not transferred in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement of Park Place Securities, Inc. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2005-WCW, resulting in a violation of the Security Act of 1934.



The amazing thing to me is the "Assignment of Mortgage" has painted them into a catch 20 situation... (that is if the court is truly impartial and fair..)

If indeed the VP of BAC somehow had the authority to sign as a VP of Argent thus adverting fraud charges.... Then the assignment of a defaulted mortgage 5 years after the cut off date into the trust is a violation of the PSA and thus in violation of the securities act of 1934..

What these people bank on is that the homeowner will just roll over and allow them to screw em.... When, in mass, HOMEOWNERS, stand up and FIGHT... this crap will cease... until then the fraud will continue...

YIC

Adam




Quote 0 0
Write a reply...