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
Under Cover
Help Please!

I would appreciate thoughts from the forum regarding the fraudclosure of our home.

Our loan is in a Morgan Stanley Trust.  To claim ownership, TBTF, as Trustee claimed our Deed of Trust was assigned to TBTF, as Trustee three months before the Trust closed. 

TBTF, as Trustee is the named Trustee to the Trust.  TBTF, as Trustee foreclosed as owner and holder of our Deed of Trust, claiming the assignment as proof of ownership.

I would very much appreciate thoughts and arguments to this scenario.  How would you attack this?  The court allowed this, ignoring our claims against. 

I understand that suggestions are not legal advice. 
  
Thanks in advance,
UC   
Quote 0 0
Read this


The REMICs have failed! “The REMICs have failed!”

If Paul Revere were alive today he would be riding through the town warning “The REMICs have failed!” However, the government these days would go, “Shhhhhh!”

Most average homeowners have no idea what a REMIC is – actually most attorneys have no clue …. so, you know many of the Judges are completely in the dark. REMICs are a form of IRS tax shelter sold to investors as part of the mortgage-backed securities package (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (“REMIC”) pursuant to I.R.C. §§860A-G).

The documents that killed the REMICs may actually help save your home.

A new report by Oppenheim Law reveals “the Black Magic of Securitized Trusts”. The largest key to REMICs is that they are required to be passive vehicles, meaning that mortgages cannot be transferred in and out of the trust once the closing date has occurred, unless the trust can meet very limited exceptions under the Internal Revenue Code. I.R.C. §860G. The 90 day requirement is imposed by the I.R.C. to ensure that the trust remains a static entity. However, since the mortgage-backed securities trust controlling documents, the Pooling & Servicing Agreement (PSA), requires that the trustee and servicer not do anything to jeopardize the tax-exempt status; PSAs generally state that any transfer after the closing date of the trust is invalid.

What does that mean to the average homeowner in foreclosure? Check the recordation office and look for the “Assignment of Mortgage” on your property – generally found just before the Notice of Foreclosure is filed with the State if your loan was securitized. Looking through hundreds of these beauties there have been few, if any, that were timely assigned to the trusts. How can you quickly tell if the Assignment of Mortgage has failed to make it timely to the trust?

The Assignment of Mortgage [below] shows a 2006 Trust – and a fraudulent assignment in 2009 – 3 years AFTER the Trust had CLOSED! Not only was it too late – but the Trust could not accept it pursuant to the REMIC of RFMSI 2006SA4 PSA and as further defined in the Oppenheim Law report. Assignments of Mortgage are public documents.

What was not known until very recently, in fact Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden brought it out in his case Delaware v. MERS, lenders generally failed to follow the PSA and properly assign the mortgage loans to the Trusts. In the transcripts that AG Biden cited from In re Kemp, 440 B.R. 624, 626 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2010) (No. 08-18700) (Aug. 11, 2009), an employee for Bank of America responsible for servicing the securitized Countrywide mortgage loans testified under oath that Countrywide did not have a practice of delivering original documents such as the note to the Trust and was not in the habit of endorsing notes at the bottom, but favored allonges that they made as they went along. She further testified that allonges are typically prepared in anticipation of foreclosure litigation, rather than at the time the mortgage loans are purportedly securitized. Both of these facts are contrary to the requirements of the PSA that the note be endorsed in blank and delivered to the trustee at the time of securitization. Thanks to foreclosure defense attorney, Bruce H. Levitt, of South Orange, NJ - Bankruptcy Chief Judge JUDITH H. WIZMUR totally got it! See her Opinion here.

The trust investors have been suing Countrywide and other Wall Street banks for inflated appraisals, systematically abandoning underwriting guidelines and over-rated bonds. The investors did not yet know that many of the mortgage loans failed to make it timely into the trusts and that the REMICs had been damaged. In fact, recently the IRS has taken notice and already initiated an investigation into the “active” activities of these trusts and the tax implications from them. Scot J. Paltrow, Exclusive: IRS Weighs tax penalties on mortgage securities, REUTERS, April 27, 2011.

Here’s a fine example of a (too) late Countrywide Assignment of Mortgage made in 2010 to a CWABS 2005-3 Trust. Did they just figure the courts were going to be oblivious forever?

This is FIVE (5) years too late! Oh yeah, the REMIC has or should have failed. And it appears there are thousands, if not millions of these gems filed all across America in every state property recordation office – you just have to look.

Law Professor Adam Levitin, Georgetown University, describes the conflict the following way in the Oppenheim Law report:

“The trustee will then typically convey the mortgage notes and security instruments to a “master document custodian” who manages the loan documentation, while the servicer handles the collection of loans. Increasingly, there are concerns that in many cases the loan documents have not been properly transferred to the trust, which raises issues about whether the trust has title to the loans and hence standing to bring foreclosure actions on defaulted loans. Because, among other reasons, of the real estate mortgage investment conduit (“REMIC”) tax trust of many private-label securitizations (“PLS”) . . . it would not be possible to transfer the mortgage loans (the note and the security instrument) to the trust after the REMIC’s closing date without losing REMIC status.”

Levitin further points out:

“As trust documents are explicit in setting forth a method and date for the transfer of the mortgage loans to the trust and in insisting that no party involved in the trust take steps that would endanger the trust’s REMIC status, if the original transfers did not comply with the method and timing for transfer required by the trust documents, then such belated transfers to the trust would be void. In these cases, there is a set of far-reaching systemic implications from clouded title to the property and from litigation against trustees and securitization sponsors for either violating trust duties or violating representations and warranties about the sale and transfer of the mortgage loans to the trust.”

Without valid assignments, attorneys say that standing and jurisdiction issues rise to the top and may be asserted at any time – even first time on appeal. If the pretender lender did not have a standing to non-judicially foreclose because the assignment of mortgage is void, logically everything thereafter would be a nullity – that could open up a can of worms beyond the pretender lenders’/servicers’ repair.

These documents appear to have been fraudulent and as lawsuits assert – were intentionally prepared and executed to unlawfully confiscate the property from the homeowners. It appears it was easier to create the fraud and get paid by default insurance or credit default swaps than it was to modify they loans with the homeowners. Not only was there fraud on the homeowners, but also on the investors.

But could REMICs be why the investors don’t partner up with the borrowers? They were both duped. The borrowers unwittingly relied on the [inflated] appraisals and had no idea that the underwriting guidelines had been “systematically abandoned” – just like the investor claims. But there is one big difference…

If the investors include the borrowers, the fraudulent assignment of mortgages will surface and the REMIC fraud will float to the top like a dead body in a botched murder case…. and somebody will be stuck with paying the IRS – even if the investors win the case and get their investments back.

Could these fraudulent assignments save your home or undo the foreclosure? That’s a question to ask a competent foreclosure defense attorney and have him review your file.

Next, we need to follow the money… who actually got paid, how much and when??

Quote 0 0
And read this.


http://abigailcfield.com/

The four fraud patterns; assignment fraud, endorsement fraud, affidavit of indebtedness fraud, and notarization fraud.

At Naked Capitalism Michael Olenick detailed how easy it is to spot the industrialization of document creation and execution by looking at where people signing the documents are. Based on his analysis of Palm Beach County records, there’s factory floors in:

“35 different states, and 101 different counties…

“…California overall notarized 815 Florida assignments, 32.6% of the total. Florida, which you’d expect, came next with 610 assignments, or 24.4% of the total, followed by Minnesota (9.3%), Texas (7.3%), Ohio (4.8%), Georgia (4.5%), Louisiana (2.8%), and Nebraska (2.6%). All other states had less than 2%.

Banks and their vendors like LPS run these knock-off document factories, producing documents that are just like those cheap purses with fake luxury labels sold in Chinatown. That is, the documents look right but couldn’t be more false.

Actually, the documents produced in the document factories are more fake than knock-off luxury items because counterfeiting is about mimicry, accurately copying the original. These documents have no originals to copy; they are pure fabrications. And not even their creators or the people who give them to courts believe that they mean what they say. Everyone’s clear that these papers are created to check legal boxes that the mortgage servicers and traders long ago decided were irrelevant to their business models.

The name I have for what’s going on in these production facilities is “document fraud.”

By document fraud, I mean specific fact patterns, not a specific crime. It’s the difference between saying someone’s intentionally starting fires and saying they’re committing arson.

Document Fraud Defined

Specifically, I mean four fact patterns; assignment fraud, endorsement fraud, affidavit of indebtedness fraud, and notarization fraud. I spell out each in turn:

A) Assignment Fraud: Giving courts and homeowners a document that claims a mortgage or deed of trust and sometimes the underlying note is being transferred with the signing of the document, when that’s blatantly false.

For example, this assignment, which was recorded in San Bernadino County, California on July 28, 2011 was “signed” with two initials by T. Sevillano, Assistant Secretary of Home123 Corporation, and claims the following:

“For value received, the undersigned hereby grants, assigns, and transfer [sic] to:

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as trustee on behalf of the Certificateholders of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2006-HE6, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-HE6

all beneficial interest under that certain deed of trust dated [] 2006…together with the note or notes therein described or referred to, the money due and to become due thereon with interest….

Dated: July 21, 2011.”

According to what this official, public document affecting private property rights in land says, T. Sevillano is an Assistant Secretary of Home123 Corporation and on July 21, 2011 Sevillano transferred a complete mortgage home loan, note and deed of trust, from Home123 to a securitization trust formed in 2006. Every single component of that narrative is false. Let us count the ways:

1) T. Sevillano is not in any meaningful sense an Assistant Secretary of Home123 any more than T. Sevillano is an Assistant Secretary of MERS or an Assistant Vice President of Bank of America. T. Sevillano is an employee on a document factory floor that has various “limited signing authority” authorizations that confer fancy-sounding titles for multiple entities.

T. Sevillano “signs” so many documents a day under these authorizations that she or he has switched to using just his or her initials. Ask a real Assistant Vice President of BofA what they do all day and I’ll guaranty it’s not sit around signing stacks of mortgage assignments.

Almost certainly the ultimate employer of T. Sevillano during the moment s/he is executing this assignment is the servicer of this mortgage, which is to say, the securitization trustee employing the servicer. That’s how it always works with MERS mortgages at least, and there’s no reason to think servicer employees/agents aren’t fabricating the paperwork for non-MERS loans. That is, it’s the servicer who knows the document is needed, so it’s the servicer who makes it happen. Home123 didn’t hire T. Sevillano and deputize him or her to assign the assets of Home123 to other companies. The trustee’s agent–the servicer–did, and so either directly or through its own agent(s), the trustee “assigned” the assets to itself.

2) Regardless of T. Sevillano’s ultimate employer, s/he is no longer authorized in any sense to transfer notes and mortgages for Home123. Home123 corporation is a subsidiary of New Century Mortgage and has been in bankruptcy in Delaware for a few years. (See this post for more.) Only the liquidation trustee or its agent can transfer assets from the bankrupt company. No way has T. Sevillano been so deputized. Don’t be confused by any new Home123 incarnation; the loan at issue in that assignment predated the bankruptcy and was issued by the original Home123.

Update:

This order in the New Century bankruptcy, in the original or as revised in light of this case (which essentially says do what you have to do to foreclose on property which you think we own or owned without bothering the court for permission, though we’re not validating your claim that we own or owned anything), does not change the false nature of the Home123 “Assistant Secretary” title. The current entity with authority to act (if any) should be executing the document. Or to put in another way, the bankruptcy court can’t authorize mortgage servicers to fabricate and file fraudulent documents.(Thanks to Anita Carr for the orders and case.)

3) No “value” was “received” for this assignment. That’s not how these work. The mortgage servicer or its agent–invariably in the case of MERS, probably invariably in all other cases–creates the document assigning the mortgage/deed of trust and sometimes note to itself or the securitization trustee it works for. The money that changed hands for the mortgage and note in this assignment flowed in 2006, when the freshly originated loan passed through the securitization chain and into the trust on this assignment.

Actually, the money changed hands back then, but it’s not at all clear the mortgage and note made it into the trust; securitization fail may be very widespread. I mean, Deutsche Bank itself told the American Home Mortgage bankruptcy court that:

“…there exist missing or defective loan file documents for several billion dollars in original principal amount of the loans.” (Bold added.) Deutsche is only talking about the loans it handles as document custodian; it also tells the court other document custodians are missing lots of American Home documents as well. (excerpt is from an earlier blog post of mine)

And there’s no reason to think American Home is some kind of unique situation.

Regardless, when the document claims this 2011 assignment is being done for value received, it’s lying.

4) Back in 2006, when value was received for this loan, the securitization trust/Deutsche Bank as trustee did not give that value to Home123. Home123 isn’t a even a party to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement allegedly covering this loan.

According to Section 2.01 of that agreement, the “Depositor”, a Morgan Stanley special purpose entity sells the notes and mortgages to the trust. That is, the trustee is giving value (via the investors) to Morgan Stanley in 2006; an honest assignment would have been created then and would be from the Morgan Stanley entity to the trustee.

5) The role of the Morgan Stanley entity and the other intervening securitization chain players exposes another false feature of this assignment: at no time, not now, not in 2006, did Home123 transfer anything to the trust or trustee. And even if Home123 did still exist, and did have a T. Sevillano working for it, and even if Home123 did tell T. Sevillano to assign this mortgage and note to the trust, that effort would still fail because Home123 hasn’t owned the loan since 2006. It has nothing to assign.

Well, maybe, because of securitization fail, its parent New Century does have the loan to assign, but nobody, including the liquidation trustee, is acting like the company still owns these loans. See for example this order and related blog post (not mine), which outline a situation in which is a bit unclear but involves a home loan issued and claimed transferred by Home123 before the bankruptcy.

Moreover, Home123′s business model, like its parent’s, involved making mortgages for the securitization machine. It did not originate loans to hold. So it’s a pretty safe bet that the loans were sold early on. And those that weren’t are part of the bankruptcy estate and no T. Sevillano has the authority to transfer them.

6) The assignment claims that the trust is receiving the note and mortgage now. Not only is that impossible because the trust is forbidden by its contracts from receiving property at this late date, but the trustee would deny the transfer is happening now if asked by an investor or accountant. I mean, that would be clear securitization fail.

In sum, the only true statements in this “assignment” are the ones that describe the deed of trust, its original recording, and the date of execution.

The factory producers of these documents understand their falsity, but don’t think it matters because the documents aren’t affidavits created under the penalty of perjury. At least, that’s how Nationwide Title Clearing explained it to me when I wrote about three depositions of their employees for DailyFinance a year ago:

“Said Nationwide Senior Vice President Jeremy Pomerantz in a statement responding to a request for comment:

“We will continue to cooperate with those who are attempting to protect consumers and uphold justice, but it is unethical to imply that long-standing industry practices, which have been found in court to be legal methods of preparing common mortgage related documents, are somehow harmful to consumers. We’re disappointed in how this was handled but are very proud of our employees for doing a great job of serving the firms that service mortgage borrowers and for clearly describing what we do in their depositions.”

“When I asked Nationwide what it meant by the bolded language, it explained that it doesn’t prepare affidavits — the sworn, based-on-personal-knowledge documents that are at the heart of the robo-signing scandal. Instead, it prepares “assignments of mortgage” and other documents that do not have the penalty of perjury attached to them.

Nationwide also emphasized that its practices are industry standard and that it did not prepare “foreclosure documents, which do require the person to attest to more specific knowledge of the information.” As of publishing, Nationwide hadn’t provided a court decision to cite for the bolded language. [bold is from my original article; I've added the underlining now.]

Noteworthy beyond the ‘they’re not affidavits so who cares if they’re false’ defense is the ‘this is how its done by everybody for years’ defense and the statement that the company’s proud of its employees for accurately testifying about the company’s practices. I mean, read my article on what the employees testified.

B) Endorsement Fraud- Countrywide documents infamously lack endorsements, but the Deutsche Bank filing I reference above makes clear those aren’t the only ones. And yet notes that were originally filed without endorsement suddenly are often refiled with endorsements. While it’s possible that in some situations these new notes are more accurate than the original filing, it’s almost certainly true that in many cases these endorsements are fabrications for litigation. (Unlike AGs/DOJ I don’t have subpoena/search warrant power so I can’t say for sure, but Linda DiMartini of BofA testified about preparing allonges [endorsements] as needed for litigation.) I mean, it’s fraud to make up evidence for trial.

A likely example of endorsement fraud recently caught the attention of a Florida judge, as foreclosure defense attorney Mark Stopa related here. Lisa Epstein of Foreclosure Hamlet has many likely examples here.

C) Affidavit of Indebtedness Fraud- Giving courts and homeowners documents swearing as to amounts due when the amounts are demonstrably wrong so often that it’s clear that the servicers generating the numbers are indifferent to accuracy, at best, and are deliberately skewing the numbers at worst.

For example, Adrian Lofton, a former LPS employee, swore that LPS screwed up the records of the banks it worked for, both the current and defaulted accounts, as I reported for DailyFinance last spring. Or consider that mortgage servicers are notorious for larding illegal fees on homeowners accounts, leading to “servicer driven foreclosures.” Finally consider that servicers can systematically misapply payments, as judge Magner discovered and Matt Stoller discusses here.

Of course, there’s all the robosigning lack of personal knowledge fraud problems with these documents too.

D) Notarization Fraud- having people make a travesty of notarization by making the formal marks on paper needed for proof of authenticity when the underlying conduct instead couldn’t be more fake: forged signatures, false witness. I mean, the raison d’etre of notarization is to prevent fraud. (See “Background” on page 2 of this notary manual, e.g.) And remember, we’re talking about land, and as Yves Smith detailed a year ago, we have a “Statute of Frauds” precisely because our legal ancestors faced a corrupt and fraudulent system of stealing land.

Bring On the Search Warrants

So, Attorneys General and US Attorneys, think you can find any crimes in those four fact patterns? The Nevada AG did, and surely you can too. And please, look hard: can you find a related conspiracy charge? Those are particularly juicy as all you prosecutors know.

But if you do find criminal charges in those fact patterns, remember, those fact patterns (except, arguably, endorsement fraud) are the business model for all the companies in the foreclosure industry, both the document factory vendors (and sometimes banks) and the banks that employ them. If you can find crimes in those fact patterns, how are those companies anything other than criminal enterprises? That is, organized crime syndicates? Seems to me these crimes, which involve stealing homes and messing up land records and generally asserting a non-existent privilege of being above the law hurt far more people than mobsters generally do.

So here’s the thing: if you can figure out criminal charges in those fact patterns, where are the search warrants? Why don’t you go to the document factory floors and seize computers and stuff? Why don’t you investigate whether the servicers are systematically misapplying payments? (Hint: see what their software is programmed to do.)

And if you can’t figure out criminal charges in those fact patterns, either you’re not trying or your legislators better get busy–with you educating them and leading the way–because your Mom will tell you that not one of those fact patterns is ok, they’re all fraudulent.

And California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris, I’m calling you out in particular about the search warrants for two reasons. First, the records in Palm Beach County, Florida, show your state has some pretty big document factories, so we know you’ve got jurisdiction. Second, despite your pull out from the “50″ state talks, you’ve yet to join the Wall Street Sheriff posse. Seizing the computers and whatnot of the document factories would be a great way to earn your badge.

But all you other AGs, most if not all of you have a document factory in your locale. To find them, do what Michael Olenick did: look at the place of notarization in your land records. And then get those search warrants.

Special Thanks to Walter Hackett of Inland Counties Legal Services

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74599788/COMMENTARY-ON-ABIGAIL-FIELD-S-DEC-2-2011-ARTICLE-ON-REALITY-CHECK-CONFRONTING-THE-NAKED-EMPERORS-NEW-CENTURY-MORTGAGE-AND-HOME123-CORPORATION

http://www.scribd.com/doc/69423026/RED-HERRINGS-MOLES-A-FEISTY-ORAL-ARGUMENT-BY-HOMEOWNER-TRANSCRIPT

Quote 0 0
Assignment In Blank
When the Plaintiff forecloses relying upon an assignment which predates the closing date of the trust, it is almost always based upon an "assignment in blank".  Mr. Roper has discussed this in prior posts.  Mr. Roper has shown that very often subprime mortgage originators executed these assignments in blank within about five to ten days of closing.

In some states, Courts have held that assignments in blank are void.  Elsewhere, alteration of the assignment in blank filling in the name of the missing grantee is an alteration of instrument, voiding the instrument.

However, the borrower has a proof problem and needs to develop proof, usually through discovery, as to the mischief.

Mr. Roper's exposition on this is very revealing.  See also the Ibanez decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

If the foreclosure has already proceeded to a final judgment and the defendant failed to raise an argument about the validity of the altered assignment in blank, the issue is probably waived.  It is probably going to be difficult to set such a judgment aside, even for fraud without the evidence which could have been obtained through discovery.

Mr. Roper also has cautioned that assignment in blank, which is usually impermissible, should not be confused with endorsement in blank, which is permissible.
Quote 0 0
Assignment In Blank
See:

 

Incomplete Instruments: Assignments in Blank
http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Incomplete-Instruments-Assignments-in-Blank-5375444

 

Distinguishing Indorsement In Blank and Assignment In Blank
http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=5042928

 

Alteration of Instruments
http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=5057829

Quote 0 0
Under Cover
Want to thank ya'll for your input.  It is very much appreciated.

Question:  Is it possible for TBTF, as Trustee, after assignment before the Trust closes, to maintain ownership and be named owner and holder in the foreclosure?

It would appear to me that before the trust closes, the loans are sold at least 3 times to qualify REMIC status.  The PSA reads:

     "Pursuant to a mortgage loan purchase and warranties agreement, NC Capital

Corporation sold the mortgage loans, without recourse, to Morgan Stanley

Mortgage Capital Inc., an affiliate of the depositor, and Morgan Stanley

Mortgage Capital Inc. will sell, transfer, assign, set over and otherwise convey

the mortgage loans, including all principal outstanding as of, and interest due

and accruing on or after, the close of business on the cut-off date, without

recourse, to the depositor on the closing date. Pursuant to the pooling and

servicing agreement, the depositor will sell, without recourse, to the trust,

all right, title and interest in and to each mortgage loan, including all

principal outstanding as of, and interest due on or after, the close of business

on the cut-off date."
 
I don't see where TBTF, as Trustee, under these circumstances, can be the owner and holder of our loan.  Am I wrong, what am I missing?
 
Thanks in advance,
UC
Quote 0 0
John Lewis
?1 have you done any discovery?
?2 what stage are you at?

Quote 0 0
John Lewis

?3 judical or nonjudical

Quote 0 0
Assignment In Blank
Under Cover:

If you are in a non-judicial foreclosure state, you are almost certainly going to be out of luck except in a bankruptcy setting.

In a judicial foreclosure state, your prospects are going to be directly related to where you are in the foreclosure process.  If the matter has already proceeded to judgment, especially by default, the alteration of the assignment in blank will probably prove to be academic.

Your prospects of success after judgment (where the arguments were not properly raised and preserved) are so slim that it is going to be uneconomic to litigate.

If the foreclosure matter is judicial and in its infancy, you may very well be able to forestall foreclosure for a protracted period.  Winning is unlikely, but possible.  Delay is very likely in this situation.

There is much to learn at the Forum.  Search old posts.  Do not become decieved by those who will encourage you to send them money to help you.  They will just rip you off.

Be realistic.  If the foreclosure sale has already been completed, you are probably better off simply moving on.  The issues associated with an altered assignment in blank are unlikely to be sufficiently robust to overcome mistakes in failing to assert a timely and effective defense.

Read Mr. Roper's posts on this.  John Lewis is asking you the right questions.
Quote 0 0
Under Cover
Want to again thank ya'll for your input.  It is very much appreciated.  I know Mr. Roper is well versed on many topics.
 
Non Judicial
 
Discovery was very promising.
 
This is what I am looking to get thoughts on.

Question:  Is it possible for TBTF, as Trustee, after assignment before the Trust closes, to maintain ownership and be named owner and holder in the foreclosure?

My belief is that after the 3 sales to become a REMIC, the TBTF, as Trustee cannot be an owner and holder.  This is very important for our case.

Thoughts and opinions would be very much appreciated.

Thanks,
UC



 
Quote 0 0
John Lewis
Under Cover asked:

"Question: Is it possible ....."

I think all here would agree in this arena anything and everything is possible.

I believe that if you follow all of the info both Ann and Assignment In Blank have provided above you will have your answer.

Good Luck!
Quote 0 0
Bill

Under Cover wrote:
Want to again thank ya'll for your input.  It is very much appreciated.  I know Mr. Roper is well versed on many topics.
 
Non Judicial
 
Discovery was very promising.
 
This is what I am looking to get thoughts on.

Question:  Is it possible for TBTF, as Trustee, after assignment before the Trust closes, to maintain ownership and be named owner and holder in the foreclosure?

My belief is that after the 3 sales to become a REMIC, the TBTF, as Trustee cannot be an owner and holder.  This is very important for our case.

Thoughts and opinions would be very much appreciated.

Thanks,
UC



 


I'm not sure exactly what you are asking and that may be why you are not getting a possible answer to your question.

Quote:

Question:  Is it possible for TBTF, as Trustee, after assignment before the Trust closes, to maintain ownership and be named owner and holder in the foreclosure?




If I am reading this correctly your note and mortgage were alleged transferred to the trust before it closed (which is what should happen).  That would make them the owner and holder for the certificate holders.  As trustee they are acting on behalf of the certificate holders.  If there are 20 certificate holders obviously they all own an interest and no one certificate holder owns a particular loan. 

I am trying to figure out if you don't understand what a trustee is/does for a trust, the securitization process, or you have another question.

Maybe reword your question.

Of course anything is possible, but the bank proving what is required by law with admissible evidence is a totally different matter.

I'm not an attorney, this isn't legal advice.................
Quote 0 0
Under Cover
I'm trying not to disclose any more than I have to.  However to try to be more clear:

New Century was the originator.

Litton fabricated an unrecorded assignment (2 years after the trust closed) from New Century to Deutsche Bank, as Trustee dating it before the DOT was recorded.

The Trust closed 6 weeks after the purported assignment date.

Litton claims this assignment to Deutsche Bank, as Trustee gives DB, as Trustee owner and holder status to foreclose.

There have been no other assignments produced, not from depositor to Trustee either.

I don't see how this can be.  I'm asking if I am missing something.

Thank you again for your thoughts.
UC 
Quote 0 0
John Lewis
Under Cover: Unfortunately there is no easy answer without one being able to actually have 'your' documents in hand.  There are just too many variables.

Again, I would recommend that you follow Ann's post above.  Suggestion ~ print it out ~ then match your document to the samples listed ~ fill in your info to generate the flow chart.

Also, please visit this site: http://www.lib-pdf.com/ppt/avoid-foreclosure.html and look for heading titled "The Problem of Foreclosure Titles in NSP Acquisitions".  It is a power point presentation ~ after you download the file ~ print it out and then again fill in your info into their diagrams.  Develop 'your' flowchart.  (If you have a color printer set it to print in color.)

Hope this helps.
Quote 0 0
John Lewis
Under Cover ~ i would also like to suggest that you google every single signature listed on your documents ~ are they robo signors ~ are they employees of 4, 5, or 10 different companies where each of those companies are part and parcel of your documents?  If yes then you can have some fun with discovery.


Quote 0 0
Assignment In Blank
You may be operating on a false premise.  New Century routinely created assignments in blank within ten days of closing.

Check your trust's PSA.  Many of these expressly provide for the creation of an assignment in blank.

Backdating of execution dates of assignments is exceptionally rare.  Alteration of blank assignments was once very common.  Blank NC assignments are almost universal.  More often in recent years, the servicer has simply forged another assignment.  This does not mean that there isn't a blank assignment.  It simply means that it was more convenient to forge rather than obtaining and altering the assignment in blank. 

If the NC assignment is executed in Harris County, Texas, it is a Litton forgery.  If the NC assignment is executed Orange County, California, it is probably an assignment in blank, as discussed by Mr. Roper.  You probably need a real expert, such as Mr. Roper, to prove the fact of alteration of the blank assignment.  (If you are contacted by one of the many swindlers who inhabit this Forum asking you for money and making vague promises to help, these should be reported to the site administrator and to public prosecutors.)

The value of focusing on the questionable assignment in a non-judicial foreclosure state in other than a Bankruptcy setting is suspect.

Backdating an instrument in Texas is a statutory criminal forgery.  If you have a Litton forgery executed and backdated in Harris County, you ought to contact a criminal prosecutor such as the Harris County DA or the Texas Attorney General.

You should also be asking specific discovery questions which are tailored to the wording of the Texas penal statute on forgery.
Quote 0 0
Assignment In Blank

John Lewis is correct in encouraging you to also focus on the identities of the signers, including notaries.

If the assignment is an authentic New Century assignment in blank, it is likely to have been executed by New Century signers, such as Magda Villanueva or Steve Nagy, depending upon the date.  The assignment in blank will use a notary from Orange county actually employed by New Century.  There will also be a New Century corporate seal.

If the instrument is simply a New Century forgery, you are going to see one of the standard Litton robo-signers.  The instrument will be executed in Harris County and authenticated by a Harris County, Texas, notary.  It will lack the NC corporate seal.

An assignment in blank would usually be dated about five to ten days after closing of the underlying mortgage or deed of trust, but always BEFORE the closing date of the trust.  A forgery would be dated much later, usually after the borrower's alleged default in contemplation of foreclosure. 

Mr. Roper is the leading national expert on New Century assignments.  He can instantly tell you whether the assignment is authentic or a forgery.  And he can explain exactly why.

Quote 0 0
Bill
Assignment In Blank wrote:

John Lewis is correct in encouraging you to also focus on the identities of the signers, including notaries.

If the assignment is an authentic New Century assignment in blank, it is likely to have been executed by New Century signers, such as Magda Villanueva or Steve Nagy, depending upon the date.  The assignment in blank will use a notary from Orange county actually employed by New Century.  There will also be a New Century corporate seal.

If the instrument is simply a New Century forgery, you are going to see one of the standard Litton robo-signers.  The instrument will be executed in Harris County and authenticated by a Harris County, Texas, notary.  It will lack the NC corporate seal.

An assignment in blank would usually be dated about five to ten days after closing of the underlying mortgage or deed of trust, but always BEFORE the closing date of the trust.  A forgery would be dated much later, usually after the borrower's alleged default in contemplation of foreclosure. 

Mr. Roper is the leading national expert on New Century assignments.  He can instantly tell you whether the assignment is authentic or a forgery.  And he can explain exactly why.



Quote 0 0
John Lewis

w4rusty aka John Lewis  09/01/11 at 03:26 PM

“A message for Mr. William A. Roper, Jr…..”

Over the years there are many many reflections from MSfraud participants ~ Mr. William A. Roper, Jr.~“thanking you for your response.”; “Your time and knowledge [your] sharing is appreciated [a] great deal, and would be even better if William Roper shred more light in this. ……All opinions are invaluable to [us].” Quoting from the post “Getting my head around this concept” by “Iatavia” 04/06/11 at 09:36 PM.

“latavia’ went on to request, and I strongly believe other forum participants would concur with the following:

“…. [WE] WILL NEED TO BEAM A “BATMAN-STYLE RELECTOR” IN THE SKY TO [get] MR WILLIAM ROPER TO PARTICIPATE HERE ;-)”

 

                                                  

 

The ‘Batman Searchlight’ is being beamed Mr. William A. Roper, Jr. we await the Bat Mobile ~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote 0 0
Under Cover
Thanks to you all for your thought and information into my dilemma.  I believe I can work through my issue with better insight now.

Magna Villenueva was the Litton signor. 

Again thanks!
UC
Quote 0 0
John Lewis

Magda Villanueva

Quote 0 0
Bill
John Lewis wrote:

Magda Villanueva


Would be an interesting assignment to challenge if he/she is no longer at Litton.  It appears Ocwen took over quite a few of the loans. 
Quote 0 0
John Lewis

UC & Bill ~ 

I will perform an intensive search and report back my findings.  Do you agree? jl

Quote 0 0
Assignment In Blank
You folks seem not to be paying attention.  Magda Villenueva NEVER worked for Litton.  Magda was an employee of New Century.

The assignment is NOT a forgery.  It was an assignment in blank to which the trustee's name was belatedly added.

Re-read my prior post:

Quote:

If the assignment is an authentic New Century assignment in blank, it is likely to have been executed by New Century signers, such as Magda Villanueva or Steve Nagy, depending upon the date. The assignment in blank will use a notary from Orange county actually employed by New Century. There will also be a New Century corporate seal.

If the instrument is simply a New Century forgery, you are going to see one of the standard Litton robo-signers. The instrument will be executed in Harris County and authenticated by a Harris County, Texas, notary. It will lack the NC corporate seal.

An assignment in blank would usually be dated about five to ten days after closing of the underlying mortgage or deed of trust, but always BEFORE the closing date of the trust. A forgery would be dated much later, usually after the borrower's alleged default in contemplation of foreclosure.



Magda's signature would have been authenticated in Orange County, California, by a New Century notary, such as Marisa G. CARRASCOEmma J. ESPARZA, Ngoc Thanh LE, Alex MERCADO, Azin RAHMANPANAH and/or Erika REYES.  (This is not an exhaustive list of New Century notaries.)

Very often, the New Century assignment authentication will appear on a separate page styled as a "California All-Purpose Acknowledgement".

*

You folks really need to stop playing around here.  You are operating on a false paradigm.  Anyone telling you that this is a forgery doen't know what they are talking about.  The assignment is REAL.  It was probably executed on the date shown by New Century personnel, if not by Magda herself by a New Century robo-signer.  This assignment is NOT a Litton forgery.

The defect with this assignment is that it was executed in blank and then altered, probably by Litton personnel, in contemplation of foreclosure.

Review the posted information on assignment in blank as well as alteration of instrument.  You probably also need to at least share your jurisdiction (state) if you want collective help from others at the site in identifying useful cases relevant to the unique facts in your case.  You would be well counseled to contact an experienced expert familiar with New Century assignments.

Your attorney needs to frame your pleadings, discovery, motions and responses around the REAL facts, NOT some fantasy about what they wish the facts might be.  This also means NOT PREMATURELY TAKING THE PLAINTIFF TO SCHOOL about your understanding of the facts. 
Quote 0 0
Under Cover
I apologize.  I knew she worked for New Century.  I'll claim numb brain as the excuse.  I'm dealing with 5 years of audits from our favorite tax collectors.

Sorry,
UC
Quote 0 0
John Lewis

The thread “Subpoena The Notary?” William A. Roper, Jr. responded to this question in detail.  I urge a complete reading of the thread as to the issue of “….the validity of a deed or assignment in most jurisdictions.”

 

A couple of highlights:

 

William A Roper jr:

 

So while it is interesting to impeach the plaintiff's evidence respecting the assignment, you need to keep clearly in mind that total destruction of the legitimacy of the authentication may not preclude the court from finding for a plaintiff.

*****

 

The KEY issue then is whether the admitted irregularities as to the authentication of these assignments can be reasonably extended to show that there are legitimate questions of fact as to the validity of the execution and or the validity of the assignment itself.
*****

There are a number of other discussions and resources discussed in other threads showing the types of things to look for. But in the end, you really need a competent expert witness to put in an affidavit showing that the assignment is a forgery.
*****

 

Although I have repeatedly hit on this theme in other discussion threads, I also want to remind you and caution you that a valid assignment is NOT usually necessary for the plaintiff to become the owner and/or holder of a promissory note. What IS necessary under the UCC is indorsement and delivery. (Some cases, such as the recent unfortunate Taylor decision in Florida have held that it isn't even necessary to prove indorsement, though this is contrary to well established law in most places.)
*****


So in preparing your defense, it is very important that you make sure that you show that there is a dispute as to the indorsement and delivery of the negotiable instrument.

Hope this helps.

Quote 0 0
fyi

discovery/assignment - find read use Deposition of Joann Rein ... "Aurora Loan Services, LLc v Percy Castillo" In The Circuit Court For The 15th Juducial Circuit..." 

Quote 0 0
Angelo
Here is a recently decided case in NY that calls into question the validity of the affidavits.

"In conclusion, plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case for summary judgment due to the defects in the documentation in their motion, described above. The defendant has made out a prima facie case for dismissal on the grounds that plaintiff lacked standing at the time the action was commenced, and may in fact still lack standing, which plaintiff has not overcome with any documentation, in admissible form or not, to prevent dismissal of the complaint."

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_52183.htm
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...