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
Liz
Below is all a quote from another forum & not my personal research.  The files were not attached to the post.

[begin quote unknown author]
I have come across some very interesting information regarding certain
"Mortgage Banking" and "Servicing" entities. CWABS Asset-Backed
Certificates Trust 2006-IM1 as per their Prospectus is the issuing
entity formed under the laws of New York State however, according to
the SEC this very same CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-IM1
is said to be incorporated in the state of Delaware.

I have requested a FOIL from the New York Charities Division and found
across the board that all of these reporting are FALSE. I have
certified copies of research from the Secretary of State of New York,
as well as from the Secretary of State from Delaware. I even went one
step further to inquire in the State of California since that is where
they have their Mailing address listed with the SEC. Do you know what
I found? The very same non existence.

I have attached the certified documents from these state departments
along with the prospectus of CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust
2006-IM1, the 8-k and 10-D report from the SEC website.

You may do this research yourself of course and you will find the same
thing. CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-IM1 is not only
lying to investors but they DO NOT EVEN EXIST.

It is easier to locate the entity on the SEC site via EDGAR and the
CIK number is 0001350046

List of documents:

CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-IM1 Prospectus
CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-IM1 8-K report from SEC
CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-IM1 10-D report from SEC
CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-IM1 no entity New York
CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-IM1 no entity Delaware
CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-IM1 no entity California

[end quote]

Quote 0 0
Hey I cant click these links, the information would be very usefull to me  I am working with attorneys at the moment concerning exactly this. In mid 2006 Countrywide was bought out by Bank of America apparently so maybe that could be causing the issue?
Quote 0 0
ka

Quote:
In mid 2006 Countrywide was bought out by Bank of America apparently so maybe that could be causing the issue?

 

Countrywide was purchased by BOA in 2008 after the collapse of Countrywide stock following the In Re Hill evidence fabrication revelations.  Mr. Roper has posted about this elsewhere at the Forum.

 

To search for SEC filings use the EDGAR facility at the Securities and Exchange Commission web site:

 

http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/webusers.htm

 

If you already know the name of the trust, use the Central Index Key search feature:

 

http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/cik.htm

 

Quote 0 0
George Burns
Liz

Why would you be searching for them in the "Charities Division" of NY or any other state?

It seems that you were contacting and searching with the wrong state entities.

The state Division of Corporations is where you search for the existence of an incorporated entity of any sort.

A Trust does not mean that it is a charitable organization.
Quote 0 0
Bill
LJ.Quinn wrote:
Hey I cant click these links, the information would be very useful to me  I am working with attorneys at the moment concerning exactly this. In mid 2006 Countrywide was bought out by Bank of America apparently so maybe that could be causing the issue?

L.J.

Unfortunately, you bumped a thread that died in 2008.  I will address the posters thoughts on this trust.  The person that did the research is most likely renting a home somewhere.  They did NOT understand securitization and failed to read and understand the simple Prospective/PSA ect...  I am far from an expert but I do understand the basics because I worked for a bank (5th 3rd) that often invested in certificates like these.  I have read quite a few.

Securitization arguments have NOT been successful.  Spending a huge amount of time doing this research when YOU do not understand is a huge waste of time that could be spent researching ROBUST defenses in your jurisdiction.  It took me about 5 mins to get all this info together and you can verify it if you care to. That being said, lets look at the trust.

Quote:
CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-IM1 as per their Prospectus is the issuing entity formed under the laws of New York State

This is correct.. 
1.  This trust was formed under NY law as a common law trust.  

Quote:
according to the SEC this very same CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-IM1 is said to be incorporated in the state of Delaware. 

2.    This is WRONG and the point when the researcher made the wrong turn at the "fork" in the road.  CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-IM1 is NOT incorporated in the state of Delaware... CWABS INC,. the depositor is Incorporated in the state of Delaware.  The trust is a common law trust in NY.

3.  
Quote:
 I even went one step further to inquire in the State of California since that is where they have their Mailing address listed with the SEC. Do you know what I found? The very same non existence. 
 The address listed:

BUSINESS ADDRESS:                            STREET 1:                  4500 PARK GRANADA                   CITY:                           CALABASAS                   STATE:                           CA                   ZIP:                           91302                   BUSINESS PHONE:                  (818) 225-4898

A simple "google" reveals:

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INC

4500 PARK GRANADA
CALABASAS,  CA  91302-1613  |  view map
(818) 225-3000

http://www.bankofamerica.com

Countrywide was the seller and sponsor of this trust.  While I'm sure YEARS later I pulled up a general number rather than the trust phone number, with the address the same, I'm sure it is reasonable that at one point it had the correct number listed on the trust document.  

The end result????

You have to ask the right questions to get the right answers.
  If you were to inquire with the State of California if they have a trust named: 

CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-IM1


The answer is no.  

If this individual had asked "WHO" is doing business at that California address they would have seen it was Country Wide, they are the seller and sponsor, and MAYBE but 2+2 together.  

If you asked Delaware if they have a trust named:

CWABS Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2006-IM1

The answer is no.

If the individual had taken the time to READ the documents and connected the dots, they would have seen CWABS inc.  is the depositor and THEY are Incorporated in Delaware, not the trust.

It was just down hill from there.

I have YET to find a trust that didn't exist.  Some are a little harder to find but the documentation is all there.  It does NOT mean they exist currently as they did years ago but that is a whole different thread.  

Be careful on how much time you spend on trust documents and research.  Most of the time it's a dead end.  The trusts DID exist when they were formed.
Quote 0 0
ka

Quote:
Liz

Why would you be searching for them in the "Charities Division" of
NY or any other state?

It seems that you were contacting and searching with the wrong state entities.

The state Division of Corporations is where you search for the
existence of an incorporated entity of any sort.

A Trust does not mean that it is a charitable organization.

 

George, as Bill has pointed out, LJ.Quinn revived a four year old post.  It probably does't matter now that Liz's question was a bit bizarre.

Quote 0 0
I am learning from bill and LJ,.... I have a question to them...
what about when the summons and complaints contains the following phrases:

"...At all times hereinafter mentioned, plaintiff was 
AND  STILL  IS  duly organized  AND  EXISTING  under the 
laws of the United States of America..."

Most of These trust only reported for two years according to the Edgar database.

Quote 0 0
George Burns
Filing reports with the SEC has nothing to do with the existence of an entity. Not filing just means that they are delinquent, assuming that they have not since become exempt from filing that particular report or form.

It is no different from a company not filing tax returns with the IRS. It just means that they are a delinquent filer.
Quote 0 0
Bill
TANYA KEPPLER wrote:
I am learning from bill and LJ,.... I have a question to them...
what about when the summons and complaints contains the following phrases:

"...At all times hereinafter mentioned, plaintiff was 
AND  STILL  IS  duly organized  AND  EXISTING  under the 
laws of the United States of America..."

Most of These trust only reported for two years according to the Edgar database.


No one can really give you an answer to your question because it just isn't enough information.  You can't take just a small portion of a document and dissect it's meaning.  You need the read the whole thing.  

For example:

Because we don't know who the Plaintiff is, this statement could be in regards to:

The Trust

The Trustee

The Servicer

or some other entity...........

We also don't know in what context the statement is being used.  It would be really hard to give any comments without reading the whole page and maybe the whole document.  

Quote:
Most of These trust only reported for two years according to the Edgar database.

You will find this is NOT uncommon and there is NOTHING sinister about this.  The SEC will allow an entity to stop reporting when the number of certificate holders drops below a certain threshold.  Usually the entities that invested in these certificates were long term corporate investors.  An example would be a pension fund.  IF you only had 2 investors, it would be less work and cost just to let your two investors receive statements, profits, loss, ect... by a direct letter.  There really isn't a reason to FORCE the publication of this information when it only affects 2 investors.


Quote 0 0
ka
Quote:
Most of These trust only reported for two years according to the Edgar database. 
 
Quote:
Filing reports with the SEC has nothing to do with the existence of an entity.  Not filing just means that they are delinquent, assuming that they have not since become exempt from filing that particular report or form.

It is no different from a company not filing tax returns with the IRS. It just means that they are a delinquent filer. 
 
Tanya,
 
George has given you a pretty good answer, but his answer is still a bit off the mark in respect to filing delinquency.  The first sentence of his post is correct:
 
Filing reports with the SEC has nothing to do with the existence of an entity.
 
But his assertion that the entity is delinquent in filing is probably NOT correct.
 
George IS correct that an SEC filing delinquency ordinarily would not imply that an entity is defunct or extinct.  Whether the company or trust continues to exist depends upon state corporation and trust laws, as well as specific facts relating to that trust.  
 
Generally speaking SEC registration statements and regular filings apply only to issuance or sale of securities into public markets.  By contrast, there tend to be exceptions as to registration and regular filing for (a) very small offerings and offering NOT made in Interstate commerce (offerings made only in a single state), (b) offerings that are made to a very small group of investors and (c) offerings made to particularly large and sophisticated investors.  the former group of small offerings (a) may be covered by state blue sky laws and might be subject to some state registration and reporting.  This latter group of offerings (b and c) is often described as a private placement.
 
A large, privately owned company is typically exempt from filing as long as it makes no public offerings of debt or equity securities.  The SEC disclosure requirements are intended to protect the public from possible losses through information transparency.
 
When you hear about a privately owned company (e.g. Facebook) "going public", this means that the company is making a securities offering into public markets, usually for the first time.  This will trigger SEC reporting.
 
By contrast, someimes you will read about a group of investors making an offering (often with management support) to purchase all of the public shares of a company.  This may result in taking the the company private and will often result in suspension of the SEC reporting requirement, at least as to the securities issues which were previously publicly traded.  
 
With residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS), the registration statements and initial periodic filings were usually required to sell the issue to public securities markets.  Most often, the suspension of reporting arose when a small group of large sophisticated investors bought up most of the trust certificates, shrinking the number of investors below the SEC threshold reporting requirement.
 
This often happened with private RMBS through secondary offerings of Collateralize Debt Offerings (CDOs).  While the initial RMBS offering reflected ownership of the individualized mortgages by the trust and pass through of the cash flows to the owners of the trust certificates, in a CDO offering, a new trust was established which purchased RMBS trust certificates rather than mortgages and carved up the RMBS cash flows in new ways.
 
When one or a couple of CDOs purchased all of a large portion of the trust certificate issues, this would also tend to suspend the RMBS reporting requirement to the SEC.  The reporting requirement was not for the benefit of the mortgage debtors.  It was for the benefit of investors in the trust certificates.
 
By way of analogy, suppose that Bill Gates used his fortune to buy ALL of the trust certificates for a particular RMBS trust. If Bill Gates owned ALL of the trust certificates, then NO ONE ELSE IS AT RISK and NO ONE REALLY BENEFITS FROM THE REPORTING EXCEPT FOR BILL GATES.  Bill Gates would be "taking the RMBS trust PRIVATE".
 
The CDOs took many private RMBS issues private.  Investors were foolish enough to purchase these new CDO trust certificates.  The CDO process further added to the opaqueness of the subprime business.  Wall Street firms also profited by betting against these CDOs which were often designed to fail.
 
The role of these secondary CDO trusts is also a source both of confusion and an opportunity for swindlers like Mike H. and Neil Garfield to deceive distressed borrowers.
 
Take the instance that some RMBS trust purchases and holds John SMITH's mortgage.  If a CDO purchases essentially ALL of the trust certificates in that particular RMBS trust, the CDO becomes the beneficial owner of John SMITH's mortgage.  But it is not the actual owner.  The owner of SMITH's mortgage remains the original RMBS trust (unless the original trust is actually unwound).  The CDO trust merely owns the trust certificates of the first RMBS trust.
 
In disclosure statements, the CDO might reveal (correctly) that it holds a beneficial interest in John SMITH's mortgage.  The disclosure may correctly disclose that investors in the CDO certificates are AT RISK for the repayment of John SMITH's mortgage.
 
The swindlers and other debt elimination scam artists will use this latter disclosure to argue that John SMITH's mortgage has been double pledged to both the RMBS trust and the CDO trust.  If the distressed borrower simply gives the swindler some money, the swindler will help to reveal arguments that will help Mr. SMITH obtain a free house.
 
SMITH will be told that the CDO PAID OFF HIS MORTGAGE or that the mortgage is double pledged.  Sometimes, the swindlers will also claim that SMITH's mortgage was paid off with mortgage insurance or credit default swaps.  This is NEVER THE CASE and has NEVER BEEN A SUCCESSFUL FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IN ANY CASE NATIONALLY.
 
These are simply stories that the swindlers tell to deceive and to create myths with sustain the swindle or debt elimination scam.
 
If someone tells you that your mortgage has been "double pledged", that the loan has been paid off by insurers or through credit default swaps, that the loan was paid off by another trust or otherwise tells you a story about how you no longer owe the money or have been excused from the debt, this person is almost certainly a swindler and is not actually seeking to help you defend your home.  These persons also typically use the term "pretender lender".  It is part of their vocabulary of deceit.
 
When someone uses this vocabulary, you should obtain as much specific information about the swindler as possible and then report them to law enforcement.  These people are NEVER actually trying to help you to defend your home and are directly responsible for the loss of tens of thousands of properties through unnecessary foreclosures!
Quote 0 0
That is what I call getting educated

I really appreciated.  Even my husband is amazed!

He suggest that would be great if  "bill"  and / or  "ka"   send me a private message
so I could reveal more related to the plaintiff...I know that never will be legal advice, of course.
Quote 0 0
isisis
I notice this thread's a bit old but I've been searching w/o success for a trust, CWABS 2006 SD2 and at this point I'll run down any lead I get. Bofa alleges they are the note holders for my loan although the backdated assignment was filed after my NOD by the infamous T. Sevillano. This was in 2/10 four years after the trust closed - my loan originated five years before the trust started up. To add to the confusion CWABS 2006 SD2 is not on SEC but apparently is a private BNY deal. I tracked the company down through the SOS of Delaware where it is incorporated with Wilmington trust.
Bofa now says that they can not modify because they do not have the contractual authority. It seems to me that it might have been nice had they mentioned that little detail before luring me into this absurdity two years ago. It would also be nice if I could find the PSA from CWABS 2006 SD2 to verify their policy regarding modification.
I have a sale date next month.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Isisis
Quote 0 0
Walt

Quote:
I notice this thread's a bit old but I've been searching w/o success for a trust, CWABS 2006 SD2 and at this point I'll run down any lead I get. Bofa alleges they are the note holders for my loan although the backdated assignment was filed after my NOD by the infamous T. Sevillano. This was in 2/10 four years after the trust closed - my loan originated five years before the trust started up. To add to the confusion CWABS 2006 SD2 is not on SEC but apparently is a private BNY deal. I tracked the company down through the SOS of Delaware where it is incorporated with Wilmington trust.

 

Bofa now says that they can not modify because they do not have the contractual authority. It seems to me that it might have been nice had they mentioned that little detail before luring me into this absurdity two years ago. It would also be nice if I could find the PSA from CWABS 2006 SD2 to verify their policy regarding modification.
 
I have a sale date next month.
 
Any ideas?
 
Thanks,
Isisis
First, I apprehend from your mention of an upcoming sale that you are in a non-judicial foreclosure state. (If there is already a judicial order of foreclosure, then it seems that a little late for the inquiry.)
 
There is something a little peculiar about the facts you recite. Usually, mortgage are secuiritized about 45 to 120 days after origination. It would be exceptionally unusual for it to take five years for a loan to find its way into a securitization, unless this was some sort of bulk securitization of loans that had previously been portfolioed by a depository institution. Another possibility would be if the loan almost immediately went into default or had some serious defects in origination and wasn't eligible for inclusion in a regular pool. In this latter instance, a loan might be "seasoned" for several years before qualifying for inclusion in a pool.
 
One other way for a loan to get into a pool late is when the loan is removed from one pool and then later placed into another different pool.
 
I would therefore ask several additional questions.
 
First, who was the originator? Also, who was the original servicer?
 
Next, was there a transfer of servicing at any time subsequent to origination, particularly was there any transfer of servicing proximate to the known securitization date.
 
Also, is BNY shown as the trustee?
 
Finally, I would note that private placement of certificates for a complete securitization is also very unusual. I realize that there doesn't seem to be a trust readily identifiable in the SEC's EDGAR database which conforms to the name of this trust. But that doesn't necessarily mean that there wasn't a registration. Sometimes, there exists one master trust that is shown in SEC registration which contains other named subtrusts which actually own the collateral. There are some complex structures.
 
While it is interesting to solve the riddles, I do not want to be overly encouraging about the prospects of anything about the securitization forming the basis to slow or prevent foreclosure.
 
Knowing the details of the securitization is useful mostly within the context of developing a defensive strategy in judicial foreclosure. The only generally effective way to stop a non-judicial foreclosure is usually within the context of bankruptcy.
 
While there are a number of swindlers who have been promoting the myth that a mortgage securitization audit could assist you in your foreclosure defense this is a scam that affords essentially nothing of any particular value is slowing or stopping foreclosure.
 
I would suggest that you immediately consult with an experience attorney specializing in consumer debt/bankruptcy to explore your alternatives. While it is interesting to solve the mystery, I fear that this is mostly a distraction from any effective defensive strategy!
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...