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
anon
I bought my property in Oct 2008 .

I went to the closing table with Citi.

The note was written in a "Freddie mac uniform instrument with MERS" .

I have Citi mortgage inc as the "lender" in the mortgage note.

I defaulted 2 years later .

5 months after that CitiMortgage inc files law suit under their name .

Little after that Freddie mac send letter saying , "we are the owners of your loan".

 In the lawsuit citimortgage claims to be the holder of the note ...not the owner.

We started discovery and we thought that the loan was securitized and asked qustions relevant to securitization , they responded by changing parties to the law suit from "Citimartgage inc" to "citimortgage inc successor by merger to amb amro  mortgage Group"saying that my loan was not part of a securitized trust.

I went to the MERS website and input the Min# and it says that the servicer is Citimortgage inc but the "Investor has chosen not to disclose his identity" says on the page.

Questions: Can that be possible ?, that i have MERS and FREDDIE MAC also Citi claiming to be the Lender on my mortgage note  and later finding out that Citi is only the servicer ,CAN IT  BE POSSIBLE THAT MY LOAN WAS NOT PART OF A SECURITIZED TRUST ?

Please , can some one answer me this simple question and some explanation why.


Quote 0 0
FnDoomed
Freddie Mac is the original securitazion crook.  Their trusts are private though so its not like trust foreclosures that you read about such as in Horace v. Lasalle.

Why do you care if your loan was securitized or not?   You should care more about the evidence in the record.

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
As has been discussed repeatedly in other various threads, the concept of owner and holder are distinct under the UCC.

Holder is a term expressly defined in the UCC.

The holder is usually entitled to enforce a negotiable instrument, whether or not it is actually the owner.

A better question to be asking is whether CitiMortgage was, in fact, the holder of the note at the inception of the suit.

In fact, it is unlikely that CitiMortgage was the holder at commencement.  Both Freddie Mac and other institutional residential mortgage backed securities trusts typically employ an institutional custodian to maintain custody of the mortgage collateral it owns.

It is most likely that this institutional custodian had custody of the note at the date of your default.  And while it is certainly possible that CitiMortgage obtained the original note from the instiutional custodian prior to filing suit, this is actually rather unlikely, as it was far more common for CitiMortgage to simply file suit without obtaining the note from the vaults of the instituional custodian.

Hopefully, you haven't already taken the plaintiff to school about the various DEFECTS in their case.

Many in the foreclosure defense community and particularly rabid, but ill informed pro se acitvists encourage borrowers to embark upon a "show me the note" strategy.

This is almost universally unsound.  Given coaching and time, the purported mortgage investor will almost ALWAYS produce the original note and DEFFEAT YOU.  A much better strategy is to carefully and quietly obtain better evidence as to the actual facts of your case while both encouraging and enabling the plaintiff to do what comes naturally:  to use perjured, forged, and fabricated evidence to build their case.

Only AFTER they have filled the record with fraudulent evidence do you want to begin to show the full measure of your appreciation as to the fraudulent documents!

Successful execution of this strategy requires a complete understanding of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Evidence, discovery and some skill in litigating.  It would be best to employ an qualified attorney with solid litigation experience and knowledge of foreclosure defense.  AVOID attorneys who are confederates of leading mortgage modification scam and debt elimination scam artists!

*

I am a little perplexed by your mention that CitiMortgage, Inc., is shown as the Lender on the note, but that CitiMortgage has amended its pleadings to now show that the plaintiff is CitiMortgage, Inc., successor by merger to ABN Ambro.  That really makes NO SENSE whatsoever.

It may be that they have sensed how little you understand mortgages and securitization and are simply seeking to further confuse you by presenting a bit of a red herring!

Typically, when a conforming loan was originated, it was sold to either Fannie or Freddie within about sixty to ninety days of origination.  If your loan was for a conforming loan amount, for an owner occupied property and at a competitive interest rate, it is very likely that it was sold to one of the GSEs.  Generally, the GSEs offered better pricing and better profits for conforming prime loans.

Only if the loan had an interest rate at a substantial premium to market interest rates would the originator have been likely to sell it into a subprime securitization.  Once sold to (or exchanged for mortgage pass through certificates with) Freddie Mac, it would be unlikely to have been again sold UNLESS the GSE required the repurchase of this loan for a breach of warranty.

So there is no reasonable reason to expect that this loan was ever sold to ABN AMRO. 
Quote 0 0
As a matter of obtaining additional information about the true owner, one might want to check to see if mortgage insurance was ordered, regardless of whether it is prime or subprime (lender paid).   In the event, the loan was ever sold, that name needs to read who the real insured is, which of course would be the current owner so they could received the funds after default and/or forclosure.

Now, having said that, you may get a sneaky servicer that simply says the servicer's name followed by:   and/or its assigns.

I just recently worked on a case that revealed City REsidential was the insured, which is proof positive the loan never went into the trust.  The reason I say that is the trust dated was 7-1-05, but City did not buy the entity that made the loan until 2007.  So then when we did not find the bank's trustee pool in the insured and saw City REsidential, we knew the loan was either returned for repurchase or it never was accepted into the pool.  Therefore, the trustee had no right to authorize foreclosure when it did.  The trustee of the pool may have secured collection rights when the loan was turned down as being eligible for the pool or it may have been a repurchase, but the trustee  should never have stood in court and admitted they were the owner and holder of the note.   Need I say more.   Try to find out in a round about way who is listed as the insured on a MI policy -  you find some surprising information that you can use, maybe not.
Quote 0 0
Angelo
joyce

Not sure if that's 100% true, my insurance policy has the serviced as the benificary of the policy. Not sure if that means that the servicer really owns the note, but it is foreclosing as a trust and the policy doesn't say that!
Quote 0 0
You are going to need to know whether or not the servicer has the right to purchase the note and lien and whether or not they are to give a valid consideration for the ownership of that note and lien.

Any and all policies must show who the mortgagee is and if they are saying that the insured is somewhat other than the trustee on behalf of the certificate holders, then that loan is not in a trust.  It is possible that it may have been there at one time, was asked to be repurchased and sent back to the seller.  In that event, they would have changed the mortgagee clause back to the true owner of which they should have reassigned back and filed in the public records.

It all depends on what the PSA says to do and how repurchases are handled and that  they must assure that the current owner receives the foreclosure proceeds or any other proceeds for that matter.  Normally, a servicer is never the note owner, but they may have decided to do that so they could manipulate the control of the Note.   Also, they may have assigned collection rights as well.   Follow the money.  

In the case I was working on, there is no way that City Mortgage, INc. could have been the owner or servicer because at the time, another servicer and the Trust was claiming ownership.   The Trustee must be the party foreclosing even though the servicer has a right to bring it under the law.
Quote 0 0
Bill

Joyce Cauthen wrote:
As a matter of obtaining additional information about the true owner, one might want to check to see if mortgage insurance was ordered, regardless of whether it is prime or subprime (lender paid).   In the event, the loan was ever sold, that name needs to read who the real insured is, which of course would be the current owner so they could received the funds after default and/or forclosure.

Now, having said that, you may get a sneaky servicer that simply says the servicer's name followed by:   and/or its assigns.

I just recently worked on a case that revealed City REsidential was the insured, which is proof positive the loan never went into the trust.  The reason I say that is the trust dated was 7-1-05, but City did not buy the entity that made the loan until 2007.  So then when we did not find the bank's trustee pool in the insured and saw City REsidential, we knew the loan was either returned for repurchase or it never was accepted into the pool.  Therefore, the trustee had no right to authorize foreclosure when it did.  The trustee of the pool may have secured collection rights when the loan was turned down as being eligible for the pool or it may have been a repurchase, but the trustee  should never have stood in court and admitted they were the owner and holder of the note.   Need I say more.   Try to find out in a round about way who is listed as the insured on a MI policy -  you find some surprising information that you can use, maybe not.


Joyce,

You have me a little confused.  Maybe it's the way you are wording your post, but could you explain a little better:

1.  Because someone is insured, how does that prove they are the owner or it never went to a trust? 

2.  What difference does it make when City bought the entity that made the loan?  Usually when the originator makes the loan, the note is indorsed and sent off to the next step in the securitization chain.  I'm not sure what difference it makes after this takes place, who purchases the originator or when the originator was purchased.

3.  How did you research the pool to see if the loan was part of the pool?

Could you post the case so we can read it?
Quote 0 0
Bill
Joyce,

What state are you located in?
Quote 0 0
I am sorry Bill if there appears to be some confusion.  It is the last thing that I would want to do.

Whenever a loan is originated and funded, it is a requirement of the loan that both the Mi insurance policy and the Hazard Insurance policy state who the insured is.  IN the case that just came up on Friday, I placed a call to the MI company and they told me it was City Residential Lending.  The did not want to go into the details because this was a lender paid policy which means that at the time the loan was approved, the lender elected to purchase mortgage insurance to cover their risk in making the sub prime loan.

Okay,  when a loan note and lien are transferred from the originating and funding lender, that means you have a new owner of the note and lien and in the event there is any loss, then the MI company must pay the claim placed by the insured.  In otherwords, the insured's name listed on the MI policy is normally the owner of the note.  So that would be a good indication as to whom the true creditor might be and the one that the servicer has the authority to foreclose on that entities behalf.  Many times the servicer may not endorse the MI insurance, but they are supposed to do that because that is the entity that is to receive the money for any losses claimed.

The reason the timing was important because attorneys for the servicer and the creditor claim it was the Trustee of a particular pooling agreement in the 2006 series and had been since 4-2006.  That means to me that the servicer and lender's attorney made a judicial admission that the trustee was the creditor and the one who had the right to foreclose the loan.  However, after  stating that the trustee was the creditor, then we find out that the MI comany is showing that the insured is City REsidential.  That is a key factor because we know through the state records that City Residential had not purchased the assets of the originator until late 2007.  What this means is the attorneys have been misrepresenting to the Court that the trustee owned the note and lien during the same time that Citi Residential was shown as being the insured on the Note.  Now, they cannot have it both ways, either Citi REsidential received the loan back as a result of a repurchse because of the default or the loan never made it into the trust in the first place.  Either way, they lied which was a fraud upon the court.

These cases are complex and confusing.  What I was attempting to tell everyone is that in the event you are looking at different sources for determining who the true creditor (the owner of the note and Lien is) then check the insured's name on the MI policy or the hazard policy to see if that might lead to something in the verification process.

If City residential was accepting funds on behalf of the a creditor, the mortgagee clause needs to read:  ____ trustee on behalf of the certificate holders in pass through 2006 HE8 or whatever the trust name is.  The servicer is not the trustee.   There is no way that City REsidential could have been the owner of the note while the Trustee for 2006 series ws the owner.

That is the only reason I was going to the date - The records show that City did not buy the assets of the original funding lender until 2007 so somebody changed it in the year 2007 - so how could the Trustee still be claiming ownership in 2008-9-10 & 11.  They may have collection rights, but they have to pay that money when they collect it to the insured.  It is just a good indication that the ownership of the note and lien are questionable and you need to make them explain it.   We all know now how much fraud upon the Court has taken place through ffalse affidavits, etc.

I hope you can better understand this -  it was a case example I thought that might be helpful to the readers when they try to check out the true owner of the note and lien.

I am in Texas.  Again these PSA agreements are pretty much the same but you must read the one that applies to your case and not take anything for granted.  Google the Trustee's name, and series for example  City Financial as trustee for certificate holders of the 2006 HEB series and it will come right up.

Then you need to see if the mortgage loan schedule was attached in order to determine if your loan was listed as one that was actually transferred.  There is a word out there now by those that say none of the loans ever made it into the trust.  However, to follow the path that they set up you have to address it.  Most of the PSA's said they were including the mortgage loan schedule, but did not.  Or they would say they provided a hard copy to the SEC, but most did not.

Let me know
Quote 0 0
Bill

Thanks for the response Joyce.  I all the work you did to help homeowners is really great.  Why did you stop helping individual homeowners?

Quote 0 0
Bill
Bill wrote:

Thanks for the response Joyce.  I all the work you did to help homeowners is really great.  Why did you stop helping individual homeowners?


Sorry, maybe I need a grammar check with the spell check. 

I think all the work you did to help homeowners is really great.  Why did you stop helping individual homeowners?
Quote 0 0
Yes this is more typical than not. The problem is that they don't know who owns it either. Contact a good foreclosure attorney with experience asap. Perhaps a seasoned veteran could bring a suit against them instead of u defending. Best of luck and if u need to vent call me. 5613899339. Deb
Quote 0 0
BISHOP
THE UCC DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN A HOLDER AND A NON-HOLDER...THE DIFFERENCE BEING THAT A NON-HOLDER "IN POSSESSION" IS ACTING IN LIEW OF THE ACTUAL HOLDER/OWNER AS AN AGENT, TRUSTEE OR SOME OTHER ENTITY OTHER THAN A DEBT COLLECTION AGENCYH.

A NON-HOLDER IN POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTE AND MORTGAGE MUST BE ABLE TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE ACTING AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ACTUAL HOLDER OWNER IF CHALLENGED.

IF THE NON-HOLDER IN POSSESSSION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTE AND MORTGAGE CANNOT PROVE A LEGAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE ACTUAL HOLDER/OWNER OF THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE, THEN THE COURT MAY NOT PROCEED ANY FURTHER AS THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED LEGALLY TO THE NON-HOLDER IN POSSESSION.
Quote 0 0

That means that your loan is a portfolio loan and ABN Amro kept the loan in house.  They would keep the majority of their loans since they were prime assets. ABN Amro only wrote Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Agency loans.  They rarely strayed and wrote any risky mortgage products.  They would do private label securititzations and keep the loans in house.  The reason why the investor chose not to identify themselves in MERS is most likely because Freddie Mac likes to stay in the shadows on their transactions.  Please keep in mind that the loan was written to Freddie mac standards and Freddie Mac insured the transaction on behalf of the investors.  It does not mean that Freddie Mac owns the loan.  Freddie Mac does not own it until it pays out the insurance claim and the collateral is turned over to them. CitiGroup purchased ABN Amro and all American mortgage assets several years ago and that would not make them the holder in due course and they have a right of redemption. I hope this helps.

Quote 0 0
Hi, I have similar situation, but I 1st purchased my house with Chase, then refinanced with ABN Amro with cash out,in  less then a year, and then only 1and a1/2 year later Citi got ABNAmro. For past three weeks I have been trying to find the PSA, but it is nowhere to be found. ?? I have searched filing for all three banks and it is not listed. Assuming that Chase has securetized the loan, but this loan was refinanced with another bank with cash-out, what happens with this original securetized  loan ? does it get moved to another pool / trust that is originated by the new bank?  Please advice. 
Quote 0 0

Hi, I have similar situation, but I 1st purchased my house with Chase, then refinanced with ABN Amro with cash out,in  less then a year, and then only 1and a1/2 year later Citi got ABNAmro. For past three weeks I have been trying to find the PSA, but it is nowhere to be found. ?? I have searched filing for all three banks and it is not listed. Assuming that Chase has securetized the loan, but this loan was refinanced with another bank with cash-out, what happens with this original securetized  loan ? does it get moved to another pool / trust that is originated by the new bank?  Please advice. 
[

/QUOTE] Eva,I am in the same boat as you as I too am trying to find out who has control of my chain of title.
I now have been scamed twice and been very untrusting of attorneys.
I did a refi in 2001 to give my ex wife a new start and I would retain the home which I bought in 1977(married in 1979 with pre-nup.) I went through a broker which was working with ABMAMBRO and all was fine BTW I invest in companies I do bussness with.ABM-AMBRO is still traded today but ABM-AMBRO home loans are not.Around 200-4-2005 I started hearing the home loan branch was going broke and they started telling me that citi was buying their home loan division.I am also not wanting citi to know that I am nosing around as to who owns my note as Mr.Roper states.I was a victom of an acciddent in Aug.2008 and am still off so I have plenty of time to search.Citi filled forclosure on me May of 2009 after I was told to defalt to get modified in the HAMP.By feb.4 2009 I was in hamp untill Jan 2011 when they told me I was NEVER in hamp and they know nothing about the 10 months of payments I made.Also they never received any paperwork from me(all was filled out and turned in to my attorneys to forward) Its all a SCAM to reduce the American working class to RENTERS OR HOMELESS!
Sorry for the rant.Proceed with caution! only do somthing when they try to sell.DO NOT LEAVE YOUR HOME.
I sold real estate for 25 years and have seen alot of things wrong with my case as well as others.I am not an attorney and can't recomend one.I just seen the name ABM AMBRO and started reading.there is alot of good imfo here and I hope and pray someone can clean up the whole mess so that good people can stay in their homes.
Quote 0 0

anon wrote:
I bought my property in Oct 2008 .

I went to the closing table with Citi.

The note was written in a "Freddie mac uniform instrument with MERS" .

I have Citi mortgage inc as the "lender" in the mortgage note.

I defaulted 2 years later .

5 months after that CitiMortgage inc files law suit under their name .

Little after that Freddie mac send letter saying , "we are the owners of your loan".

 In the lawsuit citimortgage claims to be the holder of the note ...not the owner.

We started discovery and we thought that the loan was securitized and asked qustions relevant to securitization , they responded by changing parties to the law suit from "Citimartgage inc" to "citimortgage inc successor by merger to amb amro  mortgage Group"saying that my loan was not part of a securitized trust.

I went to the MERS website and input the Min# and it says that the servicer is Citimortgage inc but the "Investor has chosen not to disclose his identity" says on the page.

Questions: Can that be possible ?, that i have MERS and FREDDIE MAC also Citi claiming to be the Lender on my mortgage note  and later finding out that Citi is only the servicer ,CAN IT  BE POSSIBLE THAT MY LOAN WAS NOT PART OF A SECURITIZED TRUST ?

Please , can some one answer me this simple question and some explanation why.


Anon,
I refied with ABM AMBRO in 2001 before they went under.Citi took them in 2005 or 06.Thats when I started paying citi and stopped abm ambro.Check New york state as the deal was oked and closed there.
I do not know how a company that went under and was bought up by another crook can make you a loan in 2008.ABM AMBROs parent company is sueing the RBS,DUETCH BANK AND WHO KNOWS ELSE.Or its vica-verca.
Listen to Mr. Roper as I believe there are many laws being broken on ALL the forclosures.
Quote 0 0
Thanks for your reply. I am still puzzling about this darn PSA. Assuming that bank "A" has securitiezed the note, but later bank"B" took over my loan due to refinancing with cash out and less then two years later bank "C" takes over bank"B", what happens to that note from bank "A" ? Does the note from bank "A" get moved to another trust created by bank "B" and then to bank "C" ? Can someone please explain ? I found several trusts for Chase created in 2004, but my loan is not there. Or at least is not listed.Could it be that it was/is a Freddie Mec loan ?

Quote 0 0

All Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae loans are securitized and sold as Mortgage Backed Securities or Asset Backed Securities. Unless you dealt with these agencies these so called securitization experts that are pretending to be experts will tell you that the loans are portfolio'd.  The loans are securitized and place in Special Investment Vehicles called REMIC's.  If you need to find your loans I have attached a sample link to Fannie Mae loan trusts and you will need to find out who the sponsor, originator, depositor, custodian and some other facts to find the PSA's or MSA's. The information I am about to share with you guys can get me fired, but I believe in helping out the little guy and Goldman Sachs doesn't give a damn about the little guy.  The money is great but I like to sleep at night.

 

 

http://www.fanniemae.com/mbs/documents/remic/remicprospectussupplements.jhtml?p=Mortgage-Backed+Securities&s=REMICs+%26+Structured+Transactions&q=Prospectus+Supplements

Quote 0 0

By the way in reading the chain I failed to notice someone referring to ABN Amro going under. In no way, shape or form did they go under.  They are one of the strongest European Banks around.  They actually sold a division called Interfirst to Citibank and a portion of the bank was sold to institutional investors.  CitiGroup owns all of the assets for the ABN Amro loans, but they would either sell them to GNMA, FNMA, FHLMC, FHA, VA, CalHFA, and USDA. ABN Amro stayed away from dangerous loans and almost all of their loans were agency loans.

 

Quote 0 0

My bad, I forgot to give you the Freddie Mac link for their REMIC's.

 

http://www.freddiemac.com/mbs/html/sd_remic_lookup.html

Quote 0 0

I just securitized the largest Remic of the year to make my quarter at $1.4 Billion and I sold the entire pool to the Chinese Government and Nomura in Japan. The REMIC serries number on that pool was #3907.

Quote 0 0
anon
and theres a sucker born every minute
Quote 0 0
BobbieF
What about the Ginnie Mae loans.  I never read any information about
them. Are they private securitized loans, and how strong are they?

Quote 0 0
Thank you for the info and for being a good person. I will try to find it there.
Quote 0 0
I am not a lawyer, I am however in a similar situation as you and have done extensive research on my own loan. Your loan was most likely securitized almost immediately.

ABN AMRO originated my loan in 2005. At that time ABN was BIG into securitization. They only brokered loans that were backed by the GSEs Fannie/Freddie. My working theory of ABN origination to securitization model means that they sold the mortgages quickly to Freddie or Fannie. Then, bought back the tranches of their origination in pools guaranteed by one of the GSE. ABN in the 2005 - 2007 years were one of the 'innovators' of exotic private label derivatives. ABN remained as the servicer to my loan. Then in 2007, ABN (wisely) sold their entire loan servicing portfolio in 2007 to Citimortgage. In 2007, Citimortgage took over as servicer.

I have my theories as to why Citi bought that huge portfolio of loans while the ship was going down. Simply said, they needed healthy loans to put into previously created private label securities that had loans that were defaulting faster than ever. Investors would "put back" the loan to Citi and say "Ah, excuse me, but this loan is not of the quality you stated". Well guess what...the party was over in 2007...they were not enough healthy loans to cover up the bad ones. So my guess, is that your loan was assigned to MERS after you signed your mortgage with Citi, they sold it to Freddie, Freddie created the tranches with several thousand loans. Citi then buys back the tranches from Freddie, now it is a government guaranteed loan (meaning tax payer backed) and registered in MERS. Citi, notices that the loan servicing portfolio from ABN AMRO has LOTS of  grabage loans and the investors that bought MBS from ABN are knocking on Citi's door to say "Hey, you bought ABN's servicer portfolio you own the responsibility to fulfill ABN AMRO's promises. Give me healthy loans".

So, Citi obliged by putting your loan in an ABN AMRO deal.  Of course, MERS may or may not have recorded that assignment within their own recording system. And certainly not at the county level. Nor may the placing of your loan in an ancient deal originated by ABN would necessarily comport with the trust agreements.

Sending a Qualified Written Request to ask where your loan assignments are. There are plenty of good examples on the web.

The fact that they changed plaintiff indicates to me that the trust where your loan is held (in a mortgage bond deal/s) was created by ABN AMRO. Ultimately it will be the trustee for the RMBS that dictates how your loan is to be dealt with. You need to know that trustee and the PSA agreements they use. Ask for that as well.

Good luck, hope this helped and was not too confusing.









anon wrote:
I bought my property in Oct 2008 .

I went to the closing table with Citi.

The note was written in a "Freddie mac uniform instrument with MERS" .

I have Citi mortgage inc as the "lender" in the mortgage note.

I defaulted 2 years later .

5 months after that CitiMortgage inc files law suit under their name .

Little after that Freddie mac send letter saying , "we are the owners of your loan".

 In the lawsuit citimortgage claims to be the holder of the note ...not the owner.

We started discovery and we thought that the loan was securitized and asked qustions relevant to securitization , they responded by changing parties to the law suit from "Citimartgage inc" to "citimortgage inc successor by merger to amb amro  mortgage Group"saying that my loan was not part of a securitized trust.

I went to the MERS website and input the Min# and it says that the servicer is Citimortgage inc but the "Investor has chosen not to disclose his identity" says on the page.

Questions: Can that be possible ?, that i have MERS and FREDDIE MAC also Citi claiming to be the Lender on my mortgage note  and later finding out that Citi is only the servicer ,CAN IT  BE POSSIBLE THAT MY LOAN WAS NOT PART OF A SECURITIZED TRUST ?

Please , can some one answer me this simple question and some explanation why.


Quote 0 0

I did go to the fannie mae site but how would you find your loan ?  They dont list loan numbers on the web site, If I go to the fannie mae main site they will acknowledge they own the note but that is it.  I did write a letter to the bank asking for the fannie mae loan number and they refused to tell me. 

Quote 0 0
It has been my experience that none of the bank servicers, nor GSE's will give information willingly or even through court ordered motions to compel. For instance the FHA filed lawsuits against almost 20 major banks because they violated a subpoena filed over a year ago demanding to see the documents to various trusts. That is the crux of the matter. The bank servicers and trustees are trying to hide the evidence of their various fraudulent schemes, even from their regulator. Keep sending certified qualified written requests to the bank servicer, freddie, the title company, the insurance company etc. If you happen to know your trustee, write to them requesting documents. Also file complaints to OCC, State AG etc.  Keep a record of the requests. Hope this helps.

I have seen instances where responses to the QWR's reveal documents that were accidentally in the replies. For instance a friend of mine had a memo saying her loan number was going to into a particular tranche of private Lehman deal. This was scanned in her loan file by mistake. The level of automation involved leaves PLENTY of room for error. In fact, I personally believe that there was almost ZERO quality control or intention to keep files secure and organized. The securitization party was never gonna end, because as we all "know" housing prices never go down, and they certainly never go down nationally all at once.......=)

Hope this helps.



Quote 0 0
Write a reply...