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
Mortgage Executed in South Carolina in 1997 for 142K Lender was Merrill lynch Credit Corp.
First Assignment took place in 2001 from above lender to Bankers Trust Company of CA as trustee for PSA 11/1/97 Mtg loan asset backed pass thru certificates Series 1997-B C/O Cendant Mortgage
Now looking for PSA as it obviously was securitized
Heres where it gets odd..
Another assignment on March 2007 from above trust to PHH Mortgage...
Question: How can a trust take the mortgage and note out and assign it???
Is this legal??
Then ODDER.....
Another assignment in June 2010 from PHH BACK TO MERRILL LYNCH CREDIT the originating lender...????
What the heck is going on here....
Can anyone help with some ways to defend this friggin monstrosity and help me understand what is going on...
Is this legal..
How can I attack this . I have a hearing next week and am meeting with attorneys now but not sure what to ask or do...

Quote 0 0
Bill
Out of curiosity, who did the assignments?
Quote 0 0
George Burns
What is the purpose of the hearing?

It is odd that you are referring to and concerned about a hearing but make no mention of filing an Answer to the Complaint or MTD. Instead you are asking questions which should already have been answered prior to a hearing.
Quote 0 0
will
They filed a lis pendens for foreclosure
Assignments done by trust company and phh mtg
Quote 0 0
Bill
will wrote:
They filed a lis pendens for foreclosure
Assignments done by trust company and phh mtg

I was interested because I thought these may have been MERS assignments.  I did NOT find a trust with the parameters you posted doing a quick search.  The assignment did NOT provide the name of the trust and Deutsche bank is the trustee for hundreds of trusts so it could still be out there.   I wonder if it was possible that there was a mistake and it NEVER really went to the trust.  They just filed assignments to correct the error putting the mortgage back with the originator.  

I don't think this is anything illegal.  The mainstream holding is that a homeowner CANNOT enforce the PSA or any securitization documents.  If someone did not follow the PSA the people that have standing to complain about the breach are the parties to the contract, not the homeowner.  Many PSAs allow for the substitution of loans also as well as other nuances.  

You should be able to nail down some facts with discovery.  

If you were served a Lis Pending, you need to make sure you respond in the time allowed by the rules.  

You should try to find an attorney.  
Quote 0 0
doh
I hope you answered the summons or at least filed a motion to extend time and then answered the summons, because in South Carolina as you know they can not foreclose on you until the lender proves to a judge that they have tried to remodify your mortgage with you and you simply could not agree. If the lender never offers you a modification settlement, and you answered your summons and requested one, they can not foreclose on your home. And if you do accept a modification they can not proceed with the foreclosure, and if you do not miss a payment that you agreed to for 3 months they must dismiss the foreclosure case.
Quote 0 0
t

Quote:
Mortgage Executed in South Carolina in 1997
for 142K Lender was Merrill lynch Credit Corp.
First Assignment took place in
2001 from above lender to Bankers Trust Company of CA as trustee for PSA 11/1/97
Mtg loan asset backed pass thru certificates Series 1997-B C/O Cendant
Mortgage
Now looking for PSA as it obviously was securitized
Heres where
it gets odd..
Another assignment on March 2007 from above trust to PHH
Mortgage...
Question: How can a trust take the mortgage and note out and
assign it???
Is this legal?? 

 

Some servicers and mortgage investors prefer to negotiate the note and assign the mortgage to from the investor to the servicer and then bring suit in the servicer's name.  This first assignment would seem to at least bear some indications that there might have been a prior default and that the assignment was made in contemplation of bringing suit in the servicer's name.

 

 

Quote:
Then ODDER.....
Another assignment in June 2010
from PHH BACK TO MERRILL LYNCH CREDIT the originating lender...????
What the
heck is going on here....
Can anyone help with some ways to defend this
friggin monstrosity and help me understand what is going on...
Is this
legal..
How can I attack this . I have a hearing next week and am meeting
with attorneys now but not sure what to ask or do... 

 

Many securitizations have features written into the loan sales agreements to provide for warranty of the loans by the originator and required repurchase when there is a breach in the warranty.

 

While one cannot know for sure without getting some answers in discovery, this transaction at least bears some resemblance to this sort of required repurchase due to a breach of warranty.

 

The breach in warranty can run the gamut from actual fraud by the originator or borrower, or simply a false representation about the characteristics of the loan.

 

There would be nothing illegal or unethical about the trust selling the loan back to the originator.  IF it turned out that the mortgage investor had discovered some originator fraud in the transaction, that seems likely to be helpful.  By contrast, if they discovered that the borrower (YOU) had made fraudulent representations in applying for the loan, then this seems to be an unproductive avenue.  I am NOT making any accusations, but rather just observing a range of possibilities.

 

In thinking about a breach of warranty, consider a consumer analogy.  Maybe someone sells you something that could NEVER DO what is represented.  But there also might simply be some mistake, as with mispackaging or mislabeling.  If you purchased a can of peas and the can said there was 16 ozs of peas, if there were really only ten ounces, you would have a pretty legitimate grievance.  You would also have a grievance if the label said it was a can of peas, but there was actually tomato sauce inside.

 

Generally, if the label says peas and there is tomato sauce inside, this is not typically going to be an issue of fraud.  One would hardly expect that consumers would be ultimately misled.

 

By contrast, if the label said "Grown in California" and the product was actually grown in Chile, or if the label said that the product was organically grown, but it was actually grown in hydroponic pools of artificial fertilizer and pesticide, this might merely be a mistaken mislabeling, but would be more likely to reflect an intentional misleading, obtaining a higher price for an ostensibly inferior product.

 

The originator warrants certain characteristics about the loans it is selling.  When there is a material deviation, the mortgage investor wants its money back, as you might if you found that you paid for peas, but got tomato sauce instead.  Of course, if you got something that you preferred by chance, you would more likely keep it rather than complain!

 

*

 

Depending upon the nature of the hearing, you might not get to ask any questions at all.  In fact, it is unlikely that you are entitled to ask any questions at most hearings.

 

Usually, discovery is the avenue by which you obtain facts in a case and hearings are often held for the court to reach a determination as to a particular issue.  If you are facing a summary judgment hearing and have no better handle on the facts, you are in for a very rude awakening and are probably about to LOSE your case.

 

See other threads discussing summary judgment.

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...