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
We need to begin working on finding out, how, who, and why,mortgages were "FORECLOSURE PROOF" and identified within the "Pooling and Servicing Agreements".
What made those loans "Foreclosure Proof"?  This created a whole separate "Class" of mortgage holder within these agreements, those that could, did or would have their mortgages foreclosed, and those that were "Protected" from foreclosure for what ever purpose.
Maybe Larry SR. or JR, or Chris Wyatt, or even one of their lawyers could answer this.  Either way we will find out why, and who, as in my "Pooling and Servicing Agreement" (Attached to this board) you will all see the last page of the Agreement and it speaks for itself. 
Now lets see what CBASS,Litton Loan, MGIC/RADIAN all have to say?  They created the Pooling and Servicing Agreements.
Quote 0 0
I share that curiosity.

The answer to that question might be useful.

I can't imagine what that profile would be.

politician? maybe
lawyer? Maybe but we had one.
cop?  Maybe but we had one.
people with litigation experience?  nope we have those.
Investigator?  Nope we have you.
wealthy?  Nope we have one.

These are the kind of people that will endeavor to fight back effectively.

I am clueless. 

What they have done is create a new "class of people" subprime borrower.
It doesn't matter how you got there.

I can't wait to hear what you come up with on this one.

Quote 0 0
Something to remember here is they didn't create it...Regardless of the pooling and service agreements the MAGNA CARTA is what protects property ownership rights. This has been around since before any of this. It's just its becoming more obvious because of the fraud our WORLD perpetuates on us. It works on GODS LAW...

Magna Carta (Latin for "Great Charter", literally "Great Paper"), also called Magna Carta Libertatum ("Great Charter of Freedoms"), is an English charter originally issued in 1215. Magna Carta was the most significant early influence on the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today. Magna Carta influenced the development of the common law and many constitutional documents, such as the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, and is considered one of the most important legal documents in the history of democracy.

Magna Carta was originally written because of disagreements among Pope Innocent III, King John and the English barons about the rights of the King. Magna Carta required the King to renounce certain rights, respect certain legal procedures and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects, whether free or fettered — most notably the writ of habeas corpus, allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment. Many clauses were renewed throughout the Middle Ages, and further during the Tudor and Stuart periods, and the 18th century. By the late 19th century, most clauses in their original form had been repealed from English law.

There are some popular misconceptions about Magna Carta, such as that it was the first document to limit the power of an English King by law, that it in practice limited the power of the king, and that it is a single static document. In fact it was not the first (it was partly based on the Charter of Liberties); it mostly did not limit the power of the King in the Middle Ages; and it is a collection of documents referred to under a common name

However, many people don't remember what they learned in history so many years ago. This situation brings it all to the present. That's why its important that we help other people regardless of their situation day in and out. To learn or teach the difference in right and wrong.

 As they always say the TRUTH will set you free! But alot of the people don't live in a TRUTH BASED SOCIETY. Or don't live by GODS LAWS and will be lost forever to having to put up with such scenarios...Even if one attempts to live by GODS LAWS at times it'll take a wiser knowledgable person to enlighten someone to do right..

But unfortunately the enlightenment may come to late. Hence why people ask do you read your BIBLE?  GOD isn't someone only in a church.Nor do you have to read a BIBLE DAILY If your heart is with him. As he's in your HEART ALWAYS PROTECTING YOU REGARDLESS of how lost you may be at times. He is the ULTIMATE who realizes he made everyone of us in an indiviudal way. We all have our own importance in being present here. While our parents may of helped create us it was his plan that has put us here regardless of the set of circumstances we may be in.
So how to fix their wrong doings? Learn more about COMMON LAW, GODS LAW, YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. I know most of the people on here are helpful. And I'd be lost without the LIGHTS GOD TURNED ON SO MANY YEARS AGO.  He gave us the knowledge without even knowing it. I know even if I read a BIBLE THOROUGHLY OR THE CONSTITUTION I don't understand it entirely . But know the basis of them enough to get me thru regardless of the mishaps that've been presented to me along the way! This I will THANK GOD FOR.

So GOD BLESS EVERYONE for the society we live in today doesn't give him enought THANKS for what he's created and given us as he gave us an unknown voice without even knowing him here in todays world.
I'm off my GOD DILIGENCE TODAY. Not really...Never will be free from him as he's saved me so many times. But unfortunately while he may not be REAL to the touch where you can see him always is by everything around you. Your home or place of residence, the food you have, your health, the children you may of been blessed with. As the LOVE he's instilled in our HEARTS is lost most of the time. But he's here day in out in as an invisible being. One could never worship him enough.


Quote 0 0
 answer: Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (aka Reverse Mortgages for
             senior citizens 62 and over) if one has substantial equity of at
             least 50%, one can get such a mortgage and never have to
             make another payment. It is also a good way out of a fore-
             closure for anyone over 62.
Quote 0 0
Mike that's a very interesting point, but I think they do not get attached to "Sub Prime".  I could be wrong, but even if that's the case, they are treated differant by age, contract, and are provided a "Shield" from foreclosure that others are not protected by within their mortgage contract, and the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement" is outside the mortgage and note contract.  It is also an agreement that the mortgage holder was omitted from participating in.  If the reverse mortgage was right, and it could be, why would they not take money from a "Trust" or other significant pool of resources so they also could be immune from foreclosure?  the Larry's know,  and sometime we will find out. 
Quote 0 0
Oh by the way, this could a Federal Civil Rights Action against those invloved.  I forgot to mention that.

Quote 0 0
Off the top of my head, the only loan that I'm currently aware of that could be considered "foreclosure proof" is one covered by the Soldier's and Sailors' Relief Act.


Quote 0 0
Originally posted by Moose
Off the top of my head, the only loan that I'm currently aware of that could be considered "foreclosure proof" is one covered by the Soldier's and Sailors' Relief Act.

I have refrained from posting to this thread because I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what this discussion is allegedly about!  Gary Wait seems to have invented the term "foreclosure proof" loans out of thin air and now there seems to be a discussion going on about it.  I had been waiting for someone to post something actually MEANINGFUL or HELPFUL about this topic so that I might UNDERSTAND what is being discussed.

I think that this is a case of the Emperor's New Cloths!  Moose has, by his post, revealed that the Emperor is actually NAKED.  And I think that he has hit the nail on the head.  The Servicemembers CIvil Relief Act -- formerly the Soldier's and Sailors' Civil Relief Act -- probably gives the ONLY effective protection.  Otherwise this seems to be a spirited discussion about nothing at all!

I believe this message thread to be a totally UNPRODUCTIVE discussion about a fictional concept that merits no further discussion.
Quote 0 0
Ed Cage

^ 5 WAR!!  

Quote 0 0
Bill, I would refer you to the POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENTS CBASS put together.  I believe a copy I obtained through Discovery a few years ago is in the documents of this site.
I'm referring directly to the last page that was provided in discovery its called: "EXHIBIT B INELIGIBLE FORECLOSURE PROPERTY SCHEDULE"
Litton has refused any further comment. 
 The term FORECLOSURE PROOF came up in a number of discussions with lawyers, I guess its similar to "Manufactured Foreclosure"  they have been created from acts, manors, documents, and from discussions trying to find a way to describe exactly what they are.
Like the previous "Forced Placed Insurance" discovery, and previous discussions here on this site, we obtained the "phony" insurance policies from Litton Loan!   I believe are also posted here also. 
So my question to you is do you have any idea what, whom, why, and for what reason Pooling and Servicing Agreements would have "EXHIBIT B INELIGIBLE FORECLOSURE PROPERTY LOAN SCHEDULE" while others within the agreement were foreclosed upon? Being that this is a "Third Party" aggrement, and the lender had no imput to a contract that they were made a party too.
I can tell you currently a number of lawyers from NYC, Minneapolis, and SF, have had a number of discussions that I have participated in with them.  They are looking at the Civil Rights angle, and exploring a class action. 
Hence the term "FORECLOSURE PROOF".   We maybe all seeing this within a few weeks in some federal actions.
Quote 0 0

I would be delighted to take a look at any underlying documents that you have found to use the term "foreclosure proof" to see if I can discern some meaning therein.  But my inclination is that Moose has hit the nail on the head -- there is just no such thing!

Some mortgages might be at least temporarily foreclosure proof by virtue of the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act as Moose points out.  Perhaps another category would be borrowers who have filed for bankruptcy and who are CURRENT in their payments pursuant to the bankruptcy plan.  That is I believe that a creditor is NOT entitled to a relief of stay to pursue a foreclosure based upon a PAST DEFAULT if the borrower is making payments and complying with the bankruptcy plan.  I have no real knowledge or experience of bankruptcy though, so I am shooting from the hip on this.

However, I am TOTALLY UNCONCERNED that there are some secret "foreclosure proof" loans out there known only to the servicer.  And I am a little unclear as to what it is that you think you have found or its significance.  "Foreclosure proof" mortgages seem to me to be a red herring.  But I would be happy to take a look and lend whatever assistance I can in understanding that which you find perplexing!
Quote 0 0
Bill, speculation is not information, and not the same as knowing exactly what it means, but who and what determined this status within the agreements is a question that has been posed.
Like the "Forced place Insurance"  we have found so much fraud, misrepresentation, and out right manufacturing of fraudulent documents, this is just another aspect that we are looking into for possible legal actions.
We are pursuing this in earnest with a number of lawyers, who have come to the same conclusion as I about these agreements.  But again, I'm not into guessing.  Many took the "FORCED PLACE INSURANCE" issue for granted, until we broke it here, and published the "Phony" POLICY!  Its now the focus and subject of several class actions, as well as independent actions, and state regulators, as well as the current IRS investigation going on at MGIC as well as the SEC Investigation.  So Bill, I really don't like "Speculating" I dig until I find out the full answers.  And jury is still out on the "Foreclosure Proof" loans contained within the Pooling and Servicing Agreements.
We maybe finding out within weeks exactly what, who and why they were listed separately upon these agreements.

Quote 0 0
Gary - the idea is counter intuitive. - not saying there may be nuances here beyond the S&SRA but realize a "foreclosure-proof" loan outside of statutory legal prohibitions would be essentiallly worthless to an investor and thus, couldn't make up more than a tiny fraction of a securitization offering.

Tax law is what prevails in all such matters. Special Purpose Vehicles are complex investment entities that drive these kinds of issues.

Having said that, there are a number of other issues that can come into play, including homesteads in certain states.  There are also legal ramifications involving farms and ranches and encumbrances where a property owner has been given certain development credits.

You can't paint the issue with a single brush.

As always, get local, experienced, legal counsel.


Quote 0 0
"Ineligible Foreclosure Property Loan": Any Mortgage Loan listed on the Ineligible Foreclosure Property Loan Schedule as of the Closing Date and for which there is no written agreement modifying such Mortgagor's obligation to make payments under the Mortgage Loan.
"Ineligible Foreclosure Property Loan Schedule": The schedule, attached hereto as an Exhibit to the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, of Ineligible Foreclosure Property Loans to be prepared by the Seller.
Could this be a restriction on accounts that can be modified?
Quote 0 0
   One possibility might be that the loan documents were so totally
messed up or got lost in the shuffle, that the trustees consider the
loans unforeclosable. As long as the borrowers  in this class are making
their payments, it isn't a problem for the trust but what they may be
saying "in=house" is that foreclosure is not an option should one of
these loans "default" ie other methods will have to be used as methods
of collection.
   I doubt it would turn out to be a civil rights issue, ie certain classes
of people would have to be treated differently in the event of a default.
The idea of "special treatment" for "party members" and different treat-
ment for the "proles" smacks of the book "1984".  It sounds "Orwellian".
Quote 0 0
Gumshoe,thanks for digging that one agreement up it and was the used in a CA decision that lead to two Lawyers from the Wolfe firm being sent up for sanctions in the DEPOLD vs LITTON LOAN CASE. My loan was modified by Larry Litton SR, and Signed by Jr. So I don't think that applies either.  As for the Armed Services Act, its already mentioned in the Pooling and Servicing Agreements, (had anyone else read it before committing)
And, again Gumshoe thanks for at least looking in the right areas.  Many are wondering just what that means, and to whom. When we find out I will post it.

Quote 0 0


C-Bass Mortgage Loan As-Bck NT Sal Mort Ln Tr Ser 2001-Cb4 · 8-K · For 12/14/01 · EX-4.3


as Servicer

as Issuer


as Indenture Trustee


Dated as of December 14, 2001


C-BASS Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Notes, Series 2001-CB4

Any REO Disposition of an REO Property related to a Group I Mortgage Loan shall be for cash only (unless changes in the REMIC Provisions made subsequent to the Startup Day allow a sale for other consideration and an Opinion of Counsel is obtained by the Servicer to the effect that such sale shall not cause any REMIC constituting part of the Trust Estate to fail to qualify as a REMIC). 


The Servicer shall not complete, or allow to be completed, a foreclosure or accept a deed in lieu of a foreclosure with respect to any Ineligible Foreclosure Property Loan if it would cause the Indenture Trustee to hold REO Property from Ineligible Foreclosure Property Loans with an aggregate  value in excess of 0.75% of the aggregate outstanding Principal Balance of the Mortgage Loans as of the end of the prior Collection Period. If the Value of REO Property from Ineligible Foreclosure Property Loans equals or exceeds 1% of the outstanding Principal Balance of the Mortgage Loans as of the end of any Collection Period, the Seller shall purchase at the Purchase Price on or prior to the related Payment Date sufficient REO Property from Ineligible Foreclosure Property Loans to cause the Indenture Trustee to hold REO Property from Ineligible Foreclosure Property Loans with a Value of less than 1% of the outstanding Principal Balance of the Mortgage Loans and such proceeds shall be treated as received during the related Prepayment Period. If the Seller shall fail to purchase any REO Property as described in the preceding sentences, the Servicer shall sell such REO Property as soon as reasonably practicable and in a commercially reasonable manner. For purposes of this paragraph the "Value" of REO Property from a Ineligible Foreclosure Property Loan shall be treated as equal to the Principal Balance of the related Ineligible Foreclosure Property Loan plus interest that had accrued on such Mortgage Loan as of the date of acquisition of the REO Property by the Indenture Trustee. The Indenture Trustee shall reconvey a Mortgage Loan so purchased in the same manner and under the same terms as specified in Section 2.03.                                       

Quote 0 0
Thanks Gumshoe, we looked at that before in discussions, and attempted to understand what it meant and whom it would apply to. It was pointed out that nowhere does it indicate the Schedule B, So some are of the thought this may or may not apply, until Litton and CBASS clear the issues I guess we will not know.  We know of no one that was on the "B" list that was foreclosed upon,
I'm not even going  to try and explain what it all means, I will wait for the outcome.  And, thanks again for the digging. 
Quote 0 0

Yes, it is intriguing.  Haven't yet been able to locate a "B List" on my SEC hunts.  Have noticed earlier SEC filings seem more transparent than later ones, particularly late 90's - 2000. 

Quote 0 0
Many early Pooling and Serving Agreements appear to be very similar to "Reinsurance Treaties" and what is called "Facilitative Placements" however the ratings and risk exposures were quite different, the loans were then "layered" out, with different "Risk" (or premiums) charged for different "Packaged Pools", many were sold several times, in different packages, so it seems.
And thanks for the digging too, CBASS and Litton are being very tight lipped on this, and have fought like hell in CA calling them "Trade Secrets". 
Quote 0 0

Ah - I see the confusion.

Ineligible Foreclosure Property does not mean foreclosure proof.

There really isn't time (or space!) to explain this in any detail, but consider there is a complicated dance being done between the servicer, the trustee and the provider of credit enhancments (insurance) for the loan(s) and the seller of the pool (typically the lender) in default situations.  This is why servicers aren't able to do much for victims of toxic loans.

In fact, some workouts could theoretically make a loan ineligible for insurance - the terms and conditions of the insurance coverage are extremely complex and there are even incentives paid to the servicer for staying on the timeline.  Then there are those loans that at the time of the closing of the pool sale where the borrower is working with the loss-mitigation department but has not yet signed an agreement to make up the difference that the insurer may (or may not) have to contribute.

There are tax implications for the trust if certain thresholds aren't kept, and in the above PSA, there are specifications that give us a clue about how much and what parts of the pool can be in REO, and it also shows a threshold that tells the seller of the loans when they'll be faced with buying them back because they're not eligible for an insurance contribution.

I suspect there are entire books on the subject, mainly because of the tax implications, and that may yet be another explanation why the IRS doesn't impose a penalty on a servicer who doesn't file a 1099 for "forgiven debt."


Obviously, these aren't "foreclosure proof," so I'm still not sure there is such a thing other than those covered by the S&SRA.


Quote 0 0

Thanks.  I was begining to think along lines of tax implications too.  This is
probably getting off Gary's point but they are there:


In January and March 2007, the Senate Banking, Finance & Insurance ...

File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML

Tax Implications of Restructuring Loans in a REMIC 

As noted above, many securitizations are structured as REMICs.  REMICs operate as pass-through entities for tax purposes.  As such, their gains and losses are passed through to the REMIC’s holders; the REMIC is not taxed at the entity level.   If a securitized pool of loans were to lose its REMIC status, the tax implications for investors could be significant.   

The REMIC portion of the tax code generally provides that in order to be modified, a loan must either be in default or reasonably foreseeable default, or that the modification not be significant, as that term is defined under the REMIC code.  As discussed earlier, servicing agreements and pooling and servicing agreements also generally require that the modifications be in the best interests of the security holders or not materially adverse to the interests of the securityholders, and that the modifications not result in a violation of the REMIC status of the securitization trust.  To date, the IRS has not issued any guidance on which types of loan modifications are allowable and consistent with the REMIC portions of the IRC and which, if any, would disqualify a pool from REMIC status.  There is also no specific IRS guidance on what steps a servicer must take to determine whether default is reasonably foreseeable. 

Quote 0 0
You maybe on to it, MGIC has a tax problem relating to as much as 800 million, these may have been "passed through" to MGIC and currently being investigated by the IRS.  Just a thought too. But it maybe right on point.  As I only received one 1098 from Litton over 5 years, and it was wrong, I think things maybe coming together.  We will be finding out a lot more in the next few weeks through discovery on other cases.  I will let everyone know. But why list them on a schedule, and indicate they are ineligible for foreclosure, by "Exhibit & Schedule" in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement? 
Quote 0 0
Gumshoe, did you get your copy of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement from the SEC web site?  I have noted differences in the one you have, and the one that was turned over to us under discovery, yet they are the same date and number.
Contact me at  I will send you the copy we obtained in discovery.
Quote 0 0
Gumshoe, thanks for taking the time to read them, amazing, one was presented in discovery during litigation, and the second to the SEC?  mmmm I wonder why, same date, and number!
No wonder CBASS and Litton Loan arn't talking!  There are a number of us now looking at others too, and guess what?  They are different too!!   I think CBASS has a real problem with the SEC, as well as MGIC/RADIAN for failing to provide due diligence with management over site!    Thanks again, We still don't know what loans, and for what reasons the could not or would not foreclose on them. Or for that matter now, which document is real?   Simply Amazing!
Thanks for your help.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...