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
A friend of a friend of mine was served yesterday and needs help writing. Any suggestion would be appreciated as him and his wife are struggling. Maybe we could have a running thread of an ongoing case for education purposes and get a win to boot. I don't get a dime out of this, I am not an attorney, and don't give legal advice and nothing in this thread is considered legal advice, it is for entertainment and educational purposes only.

The state is Wisconsin. The mortgagee on the mortgage is a Credit Union.

The first thing that jumped out at me was this statement found on the complaint: "That plaintiff is a lawful holder of the note and may enforce same and is the mortgagee of record. That Federal National Mortgage Association is the owner of the note and the plaintiff is the servicer of a contract with Federal National Mortgage Association."

That would appear to violate the PSA if he can get his hands on it.

A copy of a note and mortgage was attached to the complaint. The note has an assignment stamped at the bottom that says: 
"PAY TO THE ORDER OF__________WITHOUT RECOURSE
                             CREDIT UNION
                                 Joe Blow
                                 Joe Blow
                            Vice President

Looks to me like the Credit Union assigned the note and was paid. What the hell are they doing claiming to hold the note?

12cfr § 226.39 Mortgage transfer disclosures.

(a) Scope. The disclosure requirements of this section apply to any covered person except as otherwise provided in this section. For purposes of this section:

(1) A “ covered person” means any person, as defined in §226.2(a)(22), that becomes the owner of an existing mortgage loan by acquiring legal title to the debt obligation, whether through a purchase, assignment or other transfer, and who acquires more than one mortgage loan in any twelve-month period. For purposes of this section, a servicer of a mortgage loan shall not be treated as the owner of the obligation if the servicer holds title to the loan, or title is assigned to the servicer, solely for the administrative convenience of the servicer in servicing the obligation.

The plaintiff appears to lack standing as the real parties in interest and the case lacks ratification of commencement by joinder or substitution of the real parties in interest and the plaintiffs complaint fails to state a claim upon which this court may grant relief.

I am thinking my friend should do a QWR to the law firm to maybe gain some time and a FDCPA suit to follow.

In the meantime, he might want to do a motion to strike sham pleading.

Is it possible to get a FNMA PSA through discovery? Any help would be appreciated but try to limit the insults.



Quote 0 0
FnDoomed
I'm not a lawyer and your friends should get one.   The first thing to realize is that a lot of foreclosures are easy wins for the bank.  They have a decision of fighting what they know is a losing battle, to win or to stall, which for some is still a win.

You have to attack the evidence.  If they file a motion to strike sham and that doesn't fly, then they will see a motion for summary judgment and the fight is over.

QWR is a great idea.  It won't buy time because the case has been filed and the clock is ticking.  The PSA is likely on the FNMA website.  Fanny and Freddie will probably be using simpler, less opaque PSAs.

Dig up every piece of paper regarding their mortgage problems. 

Who says CU holds the note?
Who says FNMA owns the note?
Who says CU is servicer of the instant mortgage?
Can they prove that with specificity?
Is a notice of acceleration and default required? 
Did they get one?  
Is it in compliance with the law? 
Can the servicer prove that your friends got notice of acceleration? 
Who says they're in default anyway? 
Can they prove that? 
Was your friend properly served? 
Can that be proven?

scholar.google.com ... click on advanced search ... set it up for WI ... Do some queries and start reading.  You are looking for the arguments that prevented or reversed a summary judgment.  When the judges write, they are telling you in no uncertain terms what works and what doesn't in their courtrooms.

For example: "foreclosure servicer appeals reversed".  Here's a couple of favorable appellate level decisions:

AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC v. Carlsen, Wis: Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2011.   Having to do with the assignment and business records.

PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION v. MATTFELD, Wis: Court of Appeals, 2nd Dist. 2011.  Default foreclosure judgment vacated due to failure to publish in a newspaper where appellants resided.

Find Ann's posts on affirmative defenses.  Run them past google scholar looking for anything that applies to, and works in, WI.

Removal by filing BK is always an option.

Quote 0 0
Christopherjoseph,

I am a Forensic Mortgage Investigator in Wisconsin, the most important thing to do now is respond within 20 days to the Complaint.

What county are you in? I do have access to different attorneys, if you wish, you can email me at foreclosurefraud1@gmail.com

Tom

Just a side note, BOA yesterday voluntarily withdrew Summary Judgment on a case in which they receved SJ last June, and was scheduled for Sherrifs sale Feb 1....good things are happening.


















Quote 0 0
Moose
christopherjoseph wrote:
...

The state is Wisconsin. The mortgagee on the mortgage is a Credit Union.

The first thing that jumped out at me was this statement found on the complaint: "That plaintiff is a lawful holder of the note and may enforce same and is the mortgagee of record. That Federal National Mortgage Association is the owner of the note and the plaintiff is the servicer of a contract with Federal National Mortgage Association."

That would appear to violate the PSA if he can get his hands on it.


Remember in such cases you're almost always dealing with boilerplate filings and this one seems a perfect example. The credit union's loan was a Fannie Mae-backed loan, therefore, when it goes into default, the CU, as servicer, (holder) is the plaintiff on behalf of Fannie Mae (the alleged holder).

christopherjoseph wrote:
...
A copy of a note and mortgage was attached to the complaint. The note has an assignment stamped at the bottom that says: 
"PAY TO THE ORDER OF__________WITHOUT RECOURSE
                             CREDIT UNION
                                 Joe Blow
                                 Joe Blow
                            Vice President

Looks to me like the Credit Union assigned the note and was paid. What the hell are they doing claiming to hold the note?


Indeed, they did assign it - as almost all will be. At least they produced a copy.   Notes are endorsed in blank at the time of sale/transfer. Thus they become bearer paper and can be sold or transferred again.

They are claiming to "hold" it on behalf of the owner - Fannie Mae.

christopherjoseph wrote:
...
12cfr § 226.39 Mortgage transfer disclosures.

(a) Scope. The disclosure requirements of this section apply to any covered person except as otherwise provided in this section. For purposes of this section:

(1) A “ covered person” means any person, as defined in §226.2(a)(22), that becomes the owner of an existing mortgage loan by acquiring legal title to the debt obligation, whether through a purchase, assignment or other transfer, and who acquires more than one mortgage loan in any twelve-month period. For purposes of this section, a servicer of a mortgage loan shall not be treated as the owner of the obligation if the servicer holds title to the loan, or title is assigned to the servicer, solely for the administrative convenience of the servicer in servicing the obligation.

The plaintiff appears to lack standing as the real parties in interest and the case lacks ratification of commencement by joinder or substitution of the real parties in interest and the plaintiffs complaint fails to state a claim upon which this court may grant relief.

I am thinking my friend should do a QWR to the law firm to maybe gain some time and a FDCPA suit to follow.


During litigation everything is done under the umbrella (and time-line) of the case and if you're not represented by counsel, their attorneys will all-but refuse to talk to you "ex-parte" about anything. RESPA QWR rules won't affect the time line.

And sending one to the servicer is pointless. Once the servicer assigns a foreclosure mill and the foreclosure case is filed, they don't have to respond because the matter is in litigation. ("Talk to my attorney" is the approach.)

Having said that, some Credit Unions are far more reasonable than your typical lender - BUT - they're dealing with Fannie Mae rules and may have no wiggle room if you're friend is having serious financial trouble.

christopherjoseph wrote:
...
In the meantime, he might want to do a motion to strike sham pleading.


It depends. A quick reading of the "Mortgage Transfer Disclosures" you've included may not be the entire answer as to standing.

christopherjoseph wrote:
...
Is it possible to get a FNMA PSA through discovery? Any help would be appreciated but try to limit the insults.


This is of course, not legal advice, but the short answer is yes, you can and you should be able to find them as evidence submitted in any number of suits.

Keep in mind, the rules for discovery vary by state and court and once a suit is filed, both parties are obligated to follow those rules.

The ultimate question is two-fold: Whether or not the loan is in actually default and whether or not your friend can afford to live in the house.

No matter how long the battle goes on in court in standing or note-production foreclosure defense cases, if there is any value to the property at all (and especially in a FNMA loan), they will eventually expend the time, effort and expense to obtain the property.

Remember, most of these challenges to standing and note ownership are ruled on in the defendant's favor "without prejudice" to allow the plaintiff another bite at the apple.

I strongly recommend your friend consult with a LOCAL attorney - and as suggested earlier - don't delay.

Moose

Quote 0 0
    The first thing I would do is look at the Note and determine if it is a "negotiable instrument" or not. If not, do a title search and see if there was
a lawful assignment of the mortgage deed. If not a negotiable instrument, and no assignment of the mortgage deed, then the plaintiff has no standing and I would do a "Motion to Dismiss". This would buy you more time to find an attorney before you have to file a formal "answer". Sometimes, you will get
the case dismissed right then and there, do to the lack of standing. However
the plaintiff is allowed "two bites at the apple" and would probably go back,
do the necessary assignments and then come back at you later.
    However, if it turns out the original lender is a "dead lender" and they
never assigned the mortgage before they "died" and all they have is a non
negotiable Note, then you may be the lucky winner of the proverbial ( I know Bill will hate me for this) DEATH GAMBLE! (The English translation of the French word "mort-gage", mort= death & gager=to gamble).
     One of my pro se clients won two weeks ago, for the second time, using
this defense. The plaintiff could not get around the fact the original lender
"died" three years ago without assigning the mortgage and the note was
non negotiable (also it was a counterfeit, but that is another story and contributed to his two victories).

Quote 0 0
Bill
christopherjoseph wrote:
A friend of a friend of mine was served yesterday and needs help writing. Any suggestion would be appreciated as him and his wife are struggling. Maybe we could have a running thread of an ongoing case for education purposes and get a win to boot. I don't get a dime out of this, I am not an attorney, and don't give legal advice and nothing in this thread is considered legal advice, it is for entertainment and educational purposes only.

The state is Wisconsin. The mortgagee on the mortgage is a Credit Union.

The first thing that jumped out at me was this statement found on the complaint: "That plaintiff is a lawful holder of the note and may enforce same and is the mortgagee of record. That Federal National Mortgage Association is the owner of the note and the plaintiff is the servicer of a contract with Federal National Mortgage Association."

That would appear to violate the PSA if he can get his hands on it.

A copy of a note and mortgage was attached to the complaint. The note has an assignment stamped at the bottom that says: 
"PAY TO THE ORDER OF__________WITHOUT RECOURSE
                             CREDIT UNION
                                 Joe Blow
                                 Joe Blow
                            Vice President

Looks to me like the Credit Union assigned the note and was paid. What the hell are they doing claiming to hold the note?

The plaintiff appears to lack standing as the real parties in interest and the case lacks ratification of commencement by joinder or substitution of the real parties in interest and the plaintiffs complaint fails to state a claim upon which this court may grant relief.

I am thinking my friend should do a QWR to the law firm to maybe gain some time and a FDCPA suit to follow.

In the meantime, he might want to do a motion to strike sham pleading.

Is it possible to get a FNMA PSA through discovery? Any help would be appreciated but try to limit the insults.

Christopher,

Your friend should get an attorney.  Proceeding Pro Se is overwhelming.  Your friend will need to know AND understand the local rules, case law, how to draft pleadings, ect.. and has 20 days to learn this.  Most people that do proceed successfully Pro Se have a high level of sophistication, a high level of education, are already familiar with the courts, and are generally very sharp people (or get a hell of a lot of help). 

Your post shows the lack of understanding of several important facts and theories.  

1.  The note does not have an "assignment stamped".  This in an endorsement.  This endorsement makes it "endorsed in blank".  Notes are not assigned.  Notes are negotiated.  Negation is by endorsement and delivery.  Because this note is endorsed in "blank" the negation of this note is complete by delivery of the note making recipient the owner. 

2.  There are several in-depth threads about how introducing the PSA or allowing the Plaintiff to introduce the PSA is a quick way to lose.

3.  Moose already address the QWR request.  This would be a waist of valuable time and resources that could be focused on things that could help your friends prevail.

You are flailing around pretty good. 

IF your friend has no other choice than to proceed Pro Se, this document will help your friend understand a little more about foreclosure.  I would recommend contacting this Attorney and look for free or discount legal aid (even if you do not live in their jurisdiction, they may be able to refer you).  I would pay special attention to II (E).  It appears mediation is available.  A motion to dismiss together with a request for mediation would seem a way to POSSIBLY buy more time.  This would allow time to FIND LEGAL COUNSEL or research Wisconsin foreclosure law and begin to form a defense.   

 http://www.scribd.com/doc/56269589/Foreclosure-Defenses-Oct-14-2010

This is a link to EDGAR.  This is an on-line service from the SEC.  You will be able to search this site and find the PSA for the trust your friend is in.  While it is good to READ the PSA and be generally familiar with the trust documents I would recommend again that you read the threads about KEEPING THE PSA OUT OF EVIDENCE before you consider ANY action with this document.

http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html

If you fail to find the trust documents, please post the name of the trust and I would be more than happy to help you find the PSA.
Quote 0 0
Bill

I'm not an attorney and the above post isn't legal advice.

Quote 0 0

FnDoomed wrote:
I'm not a lawyer and your friends should get one.   The first thing to realize is that a lot of foreclosures are easy wins for the bank.  They have a decision of fighting what they know is a losing battle, to win or to stall, which for some is still a win.

You have to attack the evidence.  If they file a motion to strike sham and that doesn't fly, then they will see a motion for summary judgment and the fight is over.

QWR is a great idea.  It won't buy time because the case has been filed and the clock is ticking.  The PSA is likely on the FNMA website.  Fanny and Freddie will probably be using simpler, less opaque PSAs.

Dig up every piece of paper regarding their mortgage problems. 

Who says CU holds the note?
Who says FNMA owns the note?
Who says CU is servicer of the instant mortgage?
Can they prove that with specificity?
Is a notice of acceleration and default required? 
Did they get one?  
Is it in compliance with the law? 
Can the servicer prove that your friends got notice of acceleration? 
Who says they're in default anyway? 
Can they prove that? 
Was your friend properly served? 
Can that be proven?

scholar.google.com ... click on advanced search ... set it up for WI ... Do some queries and start reading.  You are looking for the arguments that prevented or reversed a summary judgment.  When the judges write, they are telling you in no uncertain terms what works and what doesn't in their courtrooms.

For example: "foreclosure servicer appeals reversed".  Here's a couple of favorable appellate level decisions:

AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC v. Carlsen, Wis: Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2011.   Having to do with the assignment and business records.

PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION v. MATTFELD, Wis: Court of Appeals, 2nd Dist. 2011.  Default foreclosure judgment vacated due to failure to publish in a newspaper where appellants resided.

Find Ann's posts on affirmative defenses.  Run them past google scholar looking for anything that applies to, and works in, WI.

Removal by filing BK is always an option.

I am thinking along the same lines. He was served properly and it's advertised. The plaintiff's complaint says that if the debt is disputed within 30 days the law firm will stop the process and verify it. Something good might come from that especially considering the evidence on the record that the Credit Union assigned the note for valuable consideration to some unknown party and the mortgage to Fannie Mae. I am under the impression that only the holder in due course can foreclose as long as the defendant objects properly to the attempt by the firm to substitute themselves for the real parties in interest.

What I am really interested in is the Fannie Mae PSA. I will search for it but have no experience on how find it, if that is even possible. I believe that a certified copy of the PSA would prove that no one can foreclose, if the correct evidence and objections are presented.

Thanks for the questions and cases.
Quote 0 0
foreclosurefraud wrote:
Christopherjoseph,

I am a Forensic Mortgage Investigator in Wisconsin, the most important thing to do now is respond within 20 days to the Complaint.

What county are you in? I do have access to different attorneys, if you wish, you can email me at foreclosurefraud1@gmail.com

Tom

Just a side note, BOA yesterday voluntarily withdrew Summary Judgment on a case in which they receved SJ last June, and was scheduled for Sherrifs sale Feb 1....good things are happening.
 
The problem is guy and his wife are just about broke so hiring an attorney and/or forensic mortgage investigator is out of the question. I will donate my time and pass on ideas to him for educational and entertainment purposes. Getting the PSA is very important in my opinion, so I would like to know if that is possible. 


















Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
One will NOT find a "Pooling and Servicing Agreement" in respect of a typical Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac owned or guaranteed mortgage.  That is NOT how Fannie and Freddie work.

Neither will you find registration statements for most Fannie or Freddie mortgage backed securities at the SEC.  Both Fannie and Freddie were exempted from many of the SEC registration requirements.  This is because the intention was ALWAYS to stick the taxpayers with the tab for any Fannie or Freddie bailout.

*

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sellers and servicers enter into an abbreviated agreement with the GSE which provides that the sales of mortgages (or exchanges of mortgages for GSE RMBS) will be in accordance with the GSE "Sellers Guide" and that the servicing shall be in accordance with the GSE "Servicers Guide".  These can be unilaterally changed in many respects unilaterally by announcement by the GSEs.

Both the Sellers and Servicers' Guides for both Fannie and Freddie are readily available online.

These will NOT include an indication as to whether some particular mortgage is included within a particular pool.

But both Fannie and Freddie are now relatively transparent as to their ownership interest in a particular loan.  This has been addressed in other previous threads. 
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Credit Unions as Originators or Servicers

I want to touch upon and amplify a point made by Moose in his excellent post above.

Generally speaking, Credit Unions were NOT part of the predatory subprime bubble and it was relatively rare for a credit union to be involved in the most egregious of the fraudulent origination behavior which characterized the bubble.

The exception would probably be where a credit union partnered with a less reputable lender in respect of the credit union's small volume and lack of expertise.

But most credit unions are non-profit and run for the benefit of their members.  So it is unusual to find a credit union engaging in fraudulent and unethical behavior.

Smaller credit unions would usually sell their mortgage production servicing released and another servicer would usually take over servicing after origination.  So even where a credit union was acting ethically and uprightly in the origination, the servicing might be ultimately transferred to a criminal enterprise operating as a servicer.

The fact that the credit union still seems to be servicing this loan is suggestive that the credit union has a direct relationship with Fannie Mae and sold this loan directly to Fannie Mae after origination.

The credit union would therefore be servicing the loan on Fannie Mae's behalf persuant to the Fannie Mae rules set forth in the Fannie Mae Servicing Guide.

When the servicer determined that the loan was in default in accordance with the Fannie Mae rules, it would have proceeded pretty much as set forth in the Servicers' Guide.

I seriously doubt that the credit union was engaged in the kinds of egregious fraud and misconduct that we would commonly describe as mortgage servicing fraud.  Perhaps I am mistaken, but if I was looking arsonists, robbers and thieves, I probably wouldn't begin my search as a seminary or convent.

Amongst financial institutions, credit unions are the most unlikely place to find criminal behavior and serious ethical lapses.

On the other hand, once the credit union assigns the case for foreclosure, they will typically select one of the "Designated Counsel" from an approved Fannie attorneys' list.  Bear in mind that these are the foreclosure mill law firms and these are mostly criminal enterprises!

Bear in mind that historically, law firms were put on the Fannie or Freddie list either as a political payoff to corrupt friends of President Bill Clinton (who engineered the appointment of his close friend as head of Fannie Mae) OR actual payoffs to criminals employed by the GSEs.  Both Fannie and Freddie are padded with the friends of the politically powerful in Washington.  So whether inclusion is due to criminal payoffs or "lawful contributions" to the influential who then pull the strings with those for whom employment was secured is academic.

The bottom line is that President Obama's corrupt friends and contributors, as well as the friends and contributors of the likes of Senator Christopher Dodd or Rep. Barney Frank, are the ones who are protecting the foreclosure mills and assuring that criminal enterprises remain on "designated counsel" lists.

So the net effect is that the credit union will, in many respects, lose control over the litigation to the foreclosure mill and this may well result in the introduction of perjured, forged, fabricated or other fraudulent evidence.

*

This having been said, there is NOTHING particularly sinister about the facts you have recited to date.  Fannie Mae can be the owner, while the credit union becomes the holder.  This would be accomplished by obtaining the note from the institutional custodian and putting it in the custody of the servicer.  IF this was done the allegations may be TRUE.  If it was not done, then this would be some basis to contest standing.

*

The idea that YOU are going to be the go between protecting the interests of your friends is extremely UNSOUND.  Your friends need to either work something out with the servicer, employ an attorney or become proactively engaged in their own case as pro se litigants.  Nothing good can come of your efforts to act as counsel to these borrowers in respect of matters you barely understand.  Rather than endearing yourself to these friends, you are far more likely to destroy the friendship when they lose their house and BLAME YOU!

Feel free to send them a link to this site.  But then get out of the way!  If they are unwilling or unable to put the time and energy into their own defense, you will quickly find that you are wasting your time.
Quote 0 0

William A. Roper, Jr. wrote:
One will NOT find a "Pooling and Servicing Agreement" in respect of a typical Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac owned or guaranteed mortgage.  That is NOT how Fannie and Freddie work.

Neither will you find registration statements for most Fannie or Freddie mortgage backed securities at the SEC.  Both Fannie and Freddie were exempted from many of the SEC registration requirements.  This is because the intention was ALWAYS to stick the taxpayers with the tab for any Fannie or Freddie bailout.

*

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sellers and servicers enter into an abbreviated agreement with the GSE which provides that the sales of mortgages (or exchanges of mortgages for GSE RMBS) will be in accordance with the GSE "Sellers Guide" and that the servicing shall be in accordance with the GSE "Servicers Guide".  These can be unilaterally changed in many respects unilaterally by announcement by the GSEs.

Both the Sellers and Servicers' Guides for both Fannie and Freddie are readily available online.

These will NOT include an indication as to whether some particular mortgage is included within a particular pool.

But both Fannie and Freddie are now relatively transparent as to their ownership interest in a particular loan.  This has been addressed in other previous threads. 

I am thinking of having this guy and his wife assign an interest in the property to me and plead the case out for them and me. Lots of land mines there but no guts, no glory.

Surfing the web, FNMA, and SEC Edgar some time ago gave me the intial memory that you are correct, these quasi governmental entities are not required to file the PSA with the SEC. The Sellers and Servicing Guide, if it runs contrary to the Credit Union foreclosing without some kind of authority might help. That's the kind of clues I am asking for that hopefully can be beneficial to you people in some way, thanks.

I am under the impression that due to tax considerations, the notes have to be in the trusts by a certain time period and that's like a steel door that slams down on that date. If that's the case, no way in hell is the Credit Union holding, or holder in due course of anything but BS.


Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.

Quote:
christopherjoseph said:

I am thinking of having this guy and his wife assign an interest in the property to me and plead the case out for them and me. Lots of land mines there but no guts, no glory.

Surfing the web, FNMA, and SEC Edgar some time ago gave me the intial memory that you are correct, these quasi governmental entities are not required to file the PSA with the SEC. The Sellers and Servicing Guide, if it runs contrary to the Credit Union foreclosing without some kind of authority might help. That's the kind of clues I am asking for that hopefully can be beneficial to you people in some way, thanks.

I am under the impression that due to tax considerations, the notes have to be in the trusts by a certain time period and that's like a steel door that slams down on that date. If that's the case, no way in hell is the Credit Union holding, or holder in due course of anything but BS.


Christopher:

The naivety of your posts is simply DISMAYING.

It seems that you do NOT have the best interests of your friends in mind, but instead are simply intent on trying to either impress (glory??) or to profit.

Whether you are a party or NOT, you are NOT permitted under the laws of ANY state to represent others in a legal matter before the courts.  And attempting to do so is also a CRIME in many jurisdictions.

I am HOPEFUL that your unauthorized practice of law is discovered and that you are PROSECUTED before too many people suffer as a consequence of your irresponsibility!

I certainly have NO INTEREST in further interacting with you and ENABLING YOU in any way in this unfortunate adventure.  For this reason, I will refrain from the identification of your further misunderstandings implicit in your most recent response.
Quote 0 0
George Burns
christopherjoseph

I suggest that you curb your enthusiasm. Take a deep breath, hold it and take 2 steps back. You remind me of a chicken with its head cut off.

If your friends have already been served, How will adding you help them?
If your friends have already been served, How will transferring an interest to you make you a party to the suit already filed to the names currently on the note?
Does their mortgage have a Due on Sale Clause? That would most likely trigger either default or acceleration if an interest is transferred to you. A transfer of interest to another party is same as a sale.
Even if you were added to the suit, you would just be an additional defendant. They would still have to pose their own defense. Each Defendant has their own pleadings etc which would vary by the facts of each. Your defenses would definitely be different from theirs since you were not a party at closing anyhow.

In any case the things that you are proposing are not things that have anything to do with responding to a  Complaint. Your friends would be better advised to go look up the standard Affirmative Defenses applicable to their jurisdiction. If they want to first file a Motion to Dismiss, they should be researching that also and weighing the pros and cons of which to file or fili first. They should not be spending any time with PSA or any of the issues that you have raised. They have no value at this time. The horse goes before the cart.

I could go on and on, but my comments in addition to those made by Roper and Bill, should be more than enough to show the insanity of the avenues that you are pursuing.

By far, the best advice that you should give them, especially if you are a friend and concerned with helping them, is to help them find an experienced lawyer ASAP. Please do not mess up these poor people.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
George Burns said:

Does their mortgage have a Due on Sale Clause?  That would most likely trigger either default or acceleration if an interest is transferred to you.  A transfer of interest to another party is same as a sale.


The Due on Sale provision usually appears within Section 10 of "Multistate FIxed Rate Note -- Single Family-Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Uniform Instrument (Form 3200).

The Due on Sale provision separately appears within the mortgage, deed of trust or other mortgage security instrument.  These instruments vary considerably from state to state, but often uniform covenants are up front.  In many jurisdictions, the Due on Sale provision appears within Section 18.  It is often captioned "Transfer of the Property or a Beneficial Interest in Borrower."

ALL Fannie Mae Fixed Rate mortgages have due on sale provisions.

As George points out, transfer of ANY fractional interest in the property to YOU or any other person would probably trigger the due on sale provision.  This would result in acceleration of the principal even if the borrower was not otherwise in default of payment or other covenants of the note and mortgage.  So if the borrower had any viable defenses, you would eviscerate these by your thoughtless and reckless actions.

Moreover, sale of a partial interest would probably disqualify the borrowers from HAMP, HARP or pretty much any other modification program.

Since credit unions are amongst the most borrower friendly of servicers, it would seem that you have identified the single course of action most likely to torpedo ANY chances that your "friends" have to avoid loss of their property.  One can only reasonably conclude that these are not friends at all, but rather simply desparate people you are seeking to rip off and harm.  With friends like you ...
Quote 0 0
    One lesson I learned the hard way, is that once a Lis Pendens is filed, any
person buying the property "pendant Lit" has no standing to intervene in the
case, so even if the original defendants had a strong defense, the buyer, "pendant lit" would not be able to raise them. In my case, I bought the property out of probate without realizing that a "lis pendens" had already been filed against the property. I got the case dismissed twice and figured
the battle was over. Then the plaintiff filed a memorandum with the judge
showing that i purchased the property after an LP had been filed. The Judge
had to strike all my pleadings. Luckily for me, the plaintiff never named the
personal rep of the estate of the deceased in the LP. Therefore when he sold
it to me, I was not effected by the law suit. They screwed up with the LP
and I screwed up intervening after the LP was filed. The two mistakes cancelled each other out and now we are back at square one.
     But returning to your problem, your friends need to find a lawyer fast
or else file a motion to dismiss based on lack of standing in order to buy
time. If there was no lawful assignment of the mortgage to the plaintiff,
you at least have a chance. They will respond that the Note is "negotiable"
therefore they don't need an assignment because the mortgage follows the
Note. However study the concept of what is a negotiable instrument and what is not. The chances are the Note is not a negotiable instrument and requires and assignment of the mortgage to confer standing. Research it!
Quote 0 0
I was thinking about a $1000 interest because I heard about somebody from a reliable, trusted source that was doing that but for a lot more and winning.

The thing is this guy is turning into a panty waist because he is even more ignorant than me. He mumbled something to me over the phone about it's a sin to go to court and some other religious stuff. I don't want a dime out of it but I hate to see anyone lose their home. I don't want to get my ass in a wringer either although it probably is already because my country is just about gone.

I forgot about the lis pendens. If that means I would have to backdate something that means I am just as much of a scumbag as the debt collectors and the judges. I am not doing it.

I will just have to try talking some sense into him and me having a go at it is better than watching him default. They are not seeking a deficiency judgment.

If I do anything it will be mainstream although I have seen some crazy stuff work that you would never believe. Some of you people obviously don't have the balls to do anything unless your mommy says it's ok.

Would you people believe they are creating a constructive trust in equity and probating our estates? Yup, it's all about the gift tax. I have the letter rogatory and adverse claim/apostilled affidavit that was used to win two 60k auto "loan" cases. The dude went in as executor of the legal estate after default judgment and beat the BS out of them. Look up Powers of Appointment under  Chpt. 165,  65 Stat. 91 of the Powers of Appointment Act of 1951,  Public Law No. 58,  82nd Congress, 1st Session  §§ 2 (c), 3 (c) codified at §§  671-681 and §§ 2038, 2041(b) and 2514 of title 26
Quote 0 0
spectre
christopherjoseph IF YOU REALLY WANT TO HELP YOUR FRIEND THEN SET DOWN AND SHUTUP!!! The more you talk the more clear it becomes that you have no idea what,when or HOW. Heres a thought if you want to help then help your friend find a lawyer that understands what is REALLY GOING ON! and then gather all the case files you can find and have the lawyer read them.

The way your going is wrong and even if you could represent them in court the lawyer would rip you a new a**hole. This isnt legal advice just sound advice.
Quote 0 0
FnDoomed
ChristopherJoseph - are you talking about your friend assigning you a "chose in action" ?   You're both going to need lawyers, but if you have a risk free learning opportunity then have a ball    Please don't believe any bleeding edge legal theories without some solid case law to back it up.

Some quick stuff from the FNMA website: 

http://www.fanniemae.com/mbs/pdf/gems_mega_term_sheet_032511.pdf
http://www.fanniemae.com/mbs/pdf/singlefamilytrustagreement_January2009.pdf

A closer look may yield more...


Quote 0 0
Bill

spectre wrote:
christopherjoseph IF YOU REALLY WANT TO HELP YOUR FRIEND THEN SET DOWN AND SHUTUP!!! The more you talk the more clear it becomes that you have no idea what,when or HOW. Heres a thought if you want to help then help your friend find a lawyer that understands what is REALLY GOING ON! and then gather all the case files you can find and have the lawyer read them.

The way your going is wrong and even if you could represent them in court the lawyer would rip you a new a**hole. This isnt legal advice just sound advice.


Some people need to learn the hard way.  Many of Christopher's posts show a complete ignorance of the foreclosure process and the law in general.  The assertions that a defect by a notary will void a mortgage, that a note is not negotiable because it is "not a note it's a security", and the best one so far is:
Quote:

If I do anything it will be mainstream although I have seen some crazy stuff work that you would never believe. Some of you people obviously don't have the balls to do anything unless your mommy says it's ok.




The failure to even consider the suggestions and defects illuminated by forum participants that have, and are currently litigating in court for years shows how uneducated and unsophisticated Christopher is.  You were provided MORE than enough information to help your friend.  Especially with law groups in Wisconsin that offer FREE legal representation. 

   http://www.scribd.com/doc/56269589/Foreclosure-Defenses-Oct-14-2010

Maybe after the Plaintiff and the Judge stop laughing and order the property sold, Christopher can post how unfair the legal system is and how you got a "raw deal". 
Quote 0 0

FnDoomed wrote:
ChristopherJoseph - are you talking about your friend assigning you a "chose in action" ?   You're both going to need lawyers, but if you have a risk free learning opportunity then have a ball    Please don't believe any bleeding edge legal theories without some solid case law to back it up.

Some quick stuff from the FNMA website: 

http://www.fanniemae.com/mbs/pdf/gems_mega_term_sheet_032511.pdf
http://www.fanniemae.com/mbs/pdf/singlefamilytrustagreement_January2009.pdf

A closer look may yield more...


Custodian: A Person that maintains custody of the Mortgage Notes (and may have custody of other Mortgage Documents) relating to one or more Mortgage Loans for and on behalf of the Trustee. Either an unaffiliated third party or any of the following Persons, or an affiliate of any of the following Persons, may serve as a Custodian: the Issuer, the related Seller, the Master Servicer, the Trustee, a Direct Servicer or a Subservicer; provided that any Custodian will be required to hold documents in accordance with Fannie Mae’s applicable document custodian requirements.

Direct Servicer: A Person (who may be an independent contractor of the Master Servicer) obligated to service any Mortgage Loan or Pool pursuant to a Servicing Contract.

Due-on-Transfer Provision: A provision in the Mortgage Documents that permits the owner of that Mortgage Loan to accelerate the maturity of that Mortgage Loan upon certain transfers or changes in ownership of the Mortgaged Property, whether voluntary or involuntary(which may include a sale, transfer by operation of law, or other transfer), or upon a change in
ownership of the Person that owns the Mortgaged Property, if other than a natural Person.

FAS 140: Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 140, Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities, or any successor to that accounting standard.

Fixed-Rate Mortgage Loan: A Mortgage Loan that, as of the related Issue Date (or, in the case of a substitute Mortgage Loan, as of the date the Mortgage Loan is transferred to the Trust), provides for an interest rate that is a fixed rate of interest and by its terms remains unchanged (other than after a default) until the last scheduled payment date of that Mortgage
Loan.

Guide: The Issuer’s Servicing Guide, as it is amended, supplemented, restated or succeeded from time to time, as applicable to loans of the type included in the Pool with respect to any Trust.

Holder: With respect to any Certificate, the Person in whose name that Certificate is registered in the records of the Fiscal Agent.

Master Servicer: Fannie Mae, in its capacity as master servicer under this Trust Agreement, or any successor or assign that will have the responsibilities specified for this capacity in the Trust Documents.

Servicing Contract: An agreement between the Master Servicer and a Direct Servicer or Subservicer relating to the servicing of Mortgage Loans. The Servicing Contract may be a general agreement that is entered into before or after the formation of any particular Trust, may include more than one written document (including a mortgage selling and servicing contract, a master agreement and any related pool purchase contract), and may apply to Mortgage Loans in one or more Pools and loans in Other Fannie Mae Trusts or owned by one or more other Persons.

Significant Change to a Permitted Activity: With respect to any Amendment or other instrument entered into pursuant to Article XIV, a change to the activities of a Trust that would (a) allow the Transferor to regain control over the assets transferred to the Trust, (b) cause the Trust to cease to be a “qualifying special purpose entity” under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States or (c) either adversely or positively affect the interests of any Holder in a manner that would be viewed as significant by a reasonable person (determined in the sole judgment of the Issuer). This definition will be interpreted in a manner consistent with the requirements of FAS 140 and any other relevant authoritative accounting literature, as suchrequirements are applicable from time to time. In the event that the requirements of FAS 140 in connection with a Significant Change to a Permitted Activity are no longer in effect, clause (d) of Subsection 14.4(2) will be deemed to be deleted.

 

Subservicer: A Person that is engaged, directly or indirectly, by a Direct Servicer or the Master Servicer to provide some or all of the functions that the Direct Servicer is obligated or permitted to perform under a Servicing Contract with respect to Mortgage Loans or REO Properties.

Trustee: Fannie Mae, in its capacity as trustee, its successors or assigns, which will have the responsibilities specified for this capacity in the Trust Documents.


Quote 0 0

ARTICLE II


CREATION OF TRUST; CONVEYANCE OF LOANS; PURCHASES OF LOANS


Section 2.1 Declaration of Trust, Transfer and Conveyance of Mortgage Loans;


Acceptance of Responsibilities.


2.1(1) Declaration of Trust, Transfer and Conveyance of Mortgage Loans. By delivering at least one Certificate of a Trust in the manner described in Section 3.1, the Issuer unconditionally, absolutely and irrevocably sets aside, transfers, assigns, sets over and otherwise conveys to the Trustee, on behalf of related Holders, all of the Issuer’s right, title and interest in and to the Mortgage Loans in the related Pool, together with any Pool Proceeds. Once Mortgage Loans have been identified as being part of a particular Trust for which at least one Certificate has been issued, they will remain in that Trust unless removed in a manner consistent with the Trust Documents.


 


2.1(3) Security Interest. The Issuer intends that the conveyance, transfer and setting aside of the Mortgage Loans by the Issuer to the Trustee pursuant to the Trust Documents be a true, absolute and unconditional sale of the Mortgage Loans by the Issuer to the Trust, and not a pledge of the Mortgage Loans to secure a debt or other obligation of the Issuer. Notwithstanding this express intention, however, if the Mortgage Loans are determined by a court to be the property of the Issuer, then the Issuer intends that: (a) the conveyance of the Mortgage Loans be deemed a pledge of the Mortgage Loans by the Issuer to the Trustee to secure a debt or other obligation of the Issuer; and (b) (i) the Trust Documents be deemed a security agreement within the meaning of Articles 8 and 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code as in effect from time to time in the District of Columbia;


 


Section 3.4 Custody of Mortgage Documents.
3.4(1) Delivery.
(a) Documents Delivered to Trustee or Custodian. In connection with any
transfer of a Mortgage Loan into a Trust, subject to paragraph (d) of this Subsection 3.4(1), the
following documents, if applicable to that Mortgage Loan, will be delivered (electronically or
otherwise) to the Trustee or a Custodian:
(i) (x) the original Mortgage Note or other instrument evidencing the Borrower’s
indebtedness, endorsed in blank or to the Issuer or the Trustee, and (y) if
applicable, the original, or if the original is unavailable, a copy, of any documents
that modify the terms and conditions of the Mortgage Note (such as a
modification agreement, assumption agreement or allonge);


 


Section 5.11 Realization upon Defaulted Mortgage Loans; Determination of Excess
Proceeds and Realized Losses.
5.11(1) Exercise of Remedies on Default. As soon as practicable after a Direct
Servicer or the Master Servicer determines, in accordance with Accepted Servicing Practices,
that no satisfactory loss mitigation measures can be taken in connection with a Mortgage Loan
in payment default or, to the extent permitted by paragraphs (b) and (c) of Subsection 5.3(3),
with respect to which a payment default is reasonably foreseeable, the Direct Servicer or the
Master Servicer will (i) begin foreclosure proceedings upon the related Mortgaged Property, (ii)
otherwise comparably convert the ownership of such Mortgaged Property (including accepting a
deed-in-lieu of foreclosure or conducting a preforeclosure sale of such Mortgaged Property that
may be for an amount less than the full unpaid principal balance of the Mortgage Loan) or
(iii) otherwise accept less than the full unpaid principal balance of the Mortgage Loan, subject in
each case to any environmental concerns or other risks of foreclosure. (Whether a payment
default is reasonably foreseeable will be determined in accordance with paragraph (b) of
Subsection 5.3(3).) The Master Servicer (or to the extent provided in the Servicing Contract, the
Direct Servicer) also may determine that foreclosure proceedings should be commenced
concurrently with the pursuit of any Loss Mitigation Alternatives. Subject to the foregoing, the
course of action to be followed will be determined by the Direct Servicer or the Master Servicer,
in accordance with Accepted Servicing Practices, to be the course of action most likely to
produce the greatest recovery for the Trust, taking into consideration the time value of money.
For purposes of this Subsection 5.11(1), loss mitigation measures include the arrangements
specified in Subsections 5.3(3) and 5.3(4).


 

Quote 0 0
Bill

I don't think anyone know why you posted this information other than to give the Plaintiff the information they need to WIN.


christopherjoseph wrote:


ARTICLE II


CREATION OF TRUST; CONVEYANCE OF LOANS; PURCHASES OF LOANS


Section 2.1 Declaration of Trust, Transfer and Conveyance of Mortgage Loans;


Acceptance of Responsibilities.


2.1(1) Declaration of Trust, Transfer and Conveyance of Mortgage Loans. By delivering at least one Certificate of a Trust in the manner described in Section 3.1, the Issuer unconditionally, absolutely and irrevocably sets aside, transfers, assigns, sets over and otherwise conveys to the Trustee, on behalf of related Holders, all of the Issuer’s right, title and interest in and to the Mortgage Loans in the related Pool, together with any Pool Proceeds. Once Mortgage Loans have been identified as being part of a particular Trust for which at least one Certificate has been issued, they will remain in that Trust unless removed in a manner consistent with the Trust Documents.


 


2.1(3) Security Interest. The Issuer intends that the conveyance, transfer and setting aside of the Mortgage Loans by the Issuer to the Trustee pursuant to the Trust Documents be a true, absolute and unconditional sale of the Mortgage Loans by the Issuer to the Trust, and not a pledge of the Mortgage Loans to secure a debt or other obligation of the Issuer. Notwithstanding this express intention, however, if the Mortgage Loans are determined by a court to be the property of the Issuer, then the Issuer intends that: (a) the conveyance of the Mortgage Loans be deemed a pledge of the Mortgage Loans by the Issuer to the Trustee to secure a debt or other obligation of the Issuer; and (b) (i) the Trust Documents be deemed a security agreement within the meaning of Articles 8 and 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code as in effect from time to time in the District of Columbia;


 


Section 3.4 Custody of Mortgage Documents.
3.4(1) Delivery.
(a) Documents Delivered to Trustee or Custodian. In connection with any
transfer of a Mortgage Loan into a Trust, subject to paragraph (d) of this Subsection 3.4(1), the
following documents, if applicable to that Mortgage Loan, will be delivered (electronically or
otherwise) to the Trustee or a Custodian:
(i) (x) the original Mortgage Note or other instrument evidencing the Borrower’s
indebtedness, endorsed in blank or to the Issuer or the Trustee, and (y) if
applicable, the original, or if the original is unavailable, a copy, of any documents
that modify the terms and conditions of the Mortgage Note (such as a
modification agreement, assumption agreement or allonge);


 


Section 5.11 Realization upon Defaulted Mortgage Loans; Determination of Excess
Proceeds and Realized Losses.
5.11(1) Exercise of Remedies on Default. As soon as practicable after a Direct
Servicer or the Master Servicer determines, in accordance with Accepted Servicing Practices,
that no satisfactory loss mitigation measures can be taken in connection with a Mortgage Loan
in payment default or, to the extent permitted by paragraphs (b) and (c) of Subsection 5.3(3),
with respect to which a payment default is reasonably foreseeable, the Direct Servicer or the
Master Servicer will (i) begin foreclosure proceedings upon the related Mortgaged Property, (ii)
otherwise comparably convert the ownership of such Mortgaged Property (including accepting a
deed-in-lieu of foreclosure or conducting a preforeclosure sale of such Mortgaged Property that
may be for an amount less than the full unpaid principal balance of the Mortgage Loan) or
(iii) otherwise accept less than the full unpaid principal balance of the Mortgage Loan, subject in
each case to any environmental concerns or other risks of foreclosure. (Whether a payment
default is reasonably foreseeable will be determined in accordance with paragraph (b) of
Subsection 5.3(3).) The Master Servicer (or to the extent provided in the Servicing Contract, the
Direct Servicer) also may determine that foreclosure proceedings should be commenced
concurrently with the pursuit of any Loss Mitigation Alternatives. Subject to the foregoing, the
course of action to be followed will be determined by the Direct Servicer or the Master Servicer,
in accordance with Accepted Servicing Practices, to be the course of action most likely to
produce the greatest recovery for the Trust, taking into consideration the time value of money.
For purposes of this Subsection 5.11(1), loss mitigation measures include the arrangements
specified in Subsections 5.3(3) and 5.3(4).


 

Quote 0 0
The last thing I quoted says the Direct Servicer can foreclose. The question is, what conditions, if any, apply? There has to be a catch or why all the robo-signers?

I saw a law a couple of years ago that only the Secretary of HUD or his delegate can foreclose concerning these GSE's. Does that sound familiar to anyone?





Quote 0 0
Bill
christopherjoseph wrote:
The last thing I quoted says the Direct Servicer can foreclose. The question is, what conditions, if any, apply?


Quote:

5.11(1) Exercise of Remedies on Default. As soon as practicable after a Direct Servicer or the Master Servicer determines, in accordance with Accepted Servicing Practices, that no satisfactory loss mitigation measures can be taken in connection with a Mortgage Loan in payment default or, to the extent permitted by paragraphs (b) and (c) of Subsection 5.3(3), with respect to which a payment default is reasonably foreseeable, the Direct Servicer or the Master Servicer will (i) begin foreclosure proceedings upon the related Mortgaged Property


There is no secret.  If you read the controlling documents it states exactly what the conditions are for foreclosure, who can foreclose, ect...  As with most of the documents you reference/post you fail to read past the first line.

Quote 0 0

Bill wrote:
christopherjoseph wrote:
The last thing I quoted says the Direct Servicer can foreclose. The question is, what conditions, if any, apply?


Quote:

5.11(1) Exercise of Remedies on Default. As soon as practicable after a Direct Servicer or the Master Servicer determines, in accordance with Accepted Servicing Practices, that no satisfactory loss mitigation measures can be taken in connection with a Mortgage Loan in payment default or, to the extent permitted by paragraphs (b) and (c) of Subsection 5.3(3), with respect to which a payment default is reasonably foreseeable, the Direct Servicer or the Master Servicer will (i) begin foreclosure proceedings upon the related Mortgaged Property


There is no secret.  If you read the controlling documents it states exactly what the conditions are for foreclosure, who can foreclose, ect...  As with most of the documents you reference/post you fail to read past the first line.

Then why the robo-signers? I don't buy that they are just taking a shortcut. Not only that but if push comes to shove I'll bet the law firms are just 3rd party debt collectors. Why? Because the note was materially altered and the originator deposited it and used the abandoned funds to pay the seller of the property. When a person dies intestate the proceeds are administered by escheat to the state. They are keeping two sets of books, and can't show a loan being made. The foreclosure action is to collect the tax on the donation. If the donor doesn't make the donee pay the estate tax, the donor's estate is liable.

estate=property, here's the real reason person's are liable to pay property tax

INSINUATION, civil law. The transcription of an act on the public registers, like our recording of deeds. It was not necessary in any other alienation, but that appropriated to the purpose of donation. Inst. 2, 7, 2; Poth. Traite des Donations, entre vifs, sect. 2, art. 3, Sec. 3; Encyclopedie; 8 Toull. n. 198.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

Quote 0 0
spectre
christopherjoseph Why dont you go back to the beginning? Your going down rabbit holes you dont need to go down.

Why not Start with the complaint they made a Factual statement.
And im willing to bet they didnt claim 12 b (6).
Everyone who has replied to your post has given you sound advice why dont you listen? And my last thought is if you are a friend then why dont you pay for the lawyer?
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Bill, et al:

I suggest that we simply ignore christopherjoseph.  It appears to me that he has a far more severe problem than merely reading comprehension.

He has already laced this board with sufficient posts to rather conclusively implicate himself in in criminal conduct if he follows through with the suggested "help for his friends".  As you recall, I have some rather effective means of tracking down those involved in misconduct.

In Texas, when breeding cattle, the bull is said to "service" the heifer.  I think that christopherjoseph's ambition is to be of similar "service" to his friends.  His defects seem to well exceed ignorance (which is usually curable).

If he continues to pollute the message boards with multiple deranged, factually and legally inaccurate posts, we probably need to simply ask the site administrator to BAN him from the site.  There are too many worthy people deserving of help to spend any MORE time trying to correct or unf**k this loser!
Quote 0 0
NotAProSe
I agree with Mr. Roper -- Christopher has already tipped his hand.  IGNORE.
Quote 0 0
Adam
My advice to your friends is for them to file for protection under the bankruptcy laws.

This will forestall any actions of the lenders, and give the homeowners a chance to come up with a game plan.




Quote 0 0
George Burns
How much time will that buy them ? And with what consequences?

The most that they will get, even after playing games with the filing and fee deadlines, is 6 - 9 months. Then the forecloser will file and get an almost certain lift of the Stay. Then what?

If they use the few months to come up with a plan, they most likely will have to withdraw the BK petition.

If their plan fails and they lose the foreclosure action, they might have limited their ability to use BK as a last resort because of the previous very recent filing.

IMHO, it is ill advised to use BK as a first  plan. Find a lawyer and file a response to the complaint or a motion to dismiss, and start the fight there.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...