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
please guys, (specially to "t"): help me with this

open this link:

http://sec.edgar-online.com/securitized-asset-backed-receivables-llc-trust-2006-fr3/10-k-annual-report/2007/04/02/section32.aspx

My loan is into this pool....so...I dont know what really does it means...

(you know, this securitization structure was meant to be confused BY DESIGN )..

So... if my bank balks at me..can use it as support to my possible "counterclaim"?...I


Quote 0 0
floridapathy
Nearly everything that comes xerox out of banks has been a ficticious, robo-signed mess. Why on earth are all these law firms and justices now holding the banks feet to the fire with RMBS trust documents while naively overlooking  the very real possibility that all the trust/ trustee documents are ficticous and fraudulent as well?

The comments on MSFraud lean toward staying away from introducing mortgage trust documentation into evidence as it may hurt the defendants cause. At the same time, numerous foreclosures were vacated due to mortgages not making the cut off date of known trusts.  Why the conflict here?

If the point was to defraud investors using fabricated and outright fraudulent loans, then why on earth do the courts treat the MBS pools as valid, especially after the Duetsche Bank settlement for 1 billion over securities fraud?

I really hope those 4 of 5 justices of the Fla Supreme get this foney documents thing answered once and for all in BNY Mellon v. Pino
Quote 0 0
Bill
The link didn't show your pooling agreements.  If you know what the alleged pool is you can read the exhibits and get an idea of what should have happened to your loan as well as some of the parties.  There should be things like a prospective, PSA, some kind of loan sales agreement, power of attorney, ect...

It is important to read so you know what the bank is alleging and how it relates to what really happened according to the PSA.  

Aside from information (making you smarter), you really want to keep this information OUT of evidence.  You really don't want to base a primary defense around these securitization arguments.  YOU are NOT a party to these contracts.  YOU CANNOT ENFORCE any non compliance.  If the PSA is entered into evidence, it tends to prove the existence of the trust, your loan is in the trust, and the intent of the originator to allow the trustee to enforce the note (even without an endorsement) as well as other deficiencies in the Plaintiff's case they would have to PROVE that they may not even be aware of.

Without the PSA a trust is going to have a very difficult time proving much of anything.


Quote 0 0
Angelo
Bill

It is known that we are not a party to the trust and have no right to enforce it i.e. put backs, etc.,  but why can you not try and have them prove with admissible evidence that what they are claiming is correct?  You are not trying to enforce the PSA but they are making an issue of fact, that might be true.

NY trust law holds that a trust cannot use "intent" to claim a gift of that trust.  So even if they produce an unauthenticated list of loans in that trust, wouldn't they also need to produce a delivery receipt or purchase agreement to confirm that the loan was actually purchased by the trust.  Good luck with that.

I have an interesting question, what would happen if I were to purchase a certificate of the alleged trust, would I now be party to that trust and rights to have them enforce it?  Now all of these arguments that we are not party to the trust would go out the window.




Quote 0 0
Bill

Quote:
It is known that we are not a party to the trust and have no right to enforce it i.e. put backs, etc.,  but why can you not try and have them prove with admissible evidence that what they are claiming is correct?  You are not trying to enforce the PSA but they are making an issue of fact, that might be true. 

I think that is the correct argument. The Plaintiff NEEDS to prove with admissible evidence what they are claiming is correct.  A major problem often is the Plaintiff is very vague in their pleadings.  They leave the door open to change their story.  

An example of this could be something like........

Quote:
The Plaintiff has an ownership interest in the note and mortgage.  The note was delivered to the Plaintiff by the prior holder thereof for the purpose of giving the Plaintiff the right to enforce the note.....
 This is strait from a complaint...


This really doesn't help a homeowner much at all.  

Did the Plaintiff get the note from the originator?

Was the note negotiated to the Plaintiff?

Is the Plaintiff a Transferee?

In this example the Plaintiff can easily change their position.

You REALLY need to nail down the Plaintiff's position in DISCOVERY then poke holes in it.

Professor Levitin has made a similar argument:


Mr. Levitin openly says this theories have NOT been tested in court.  I have 2 big problems with his arguments which he doesn't address:

1.  IF his securitization arguments are found to be correct, this still doesn't seem to help people OUTSIDE OF NY STATE.  Usually the controlling law is the law of the state in which the property is located.


2.  Most importantly, it's unclear if ANY securitization argument can really prevail.

The UCC is really slanted towards the bank.  Generally, if the Plaintiff has a note endorsed in blank, they can enforce the note.  This is a HUGE mountain to overcome.  They don't need to be the owner.  Just have possession of an note endorsed in blank.  

IF the note never made it to the trust but the U.S. Bank has the note endorsed in blank, there isn't going to be much case law that says U.S. Bank CAN'T enforce the note.  You may cause a delay and some confusion, but I think the Plaintiff will have a strong argument in regards to standing if they have a note endorsed in blank.  


Mr. Roper use to always post that the chances of a homeowner prevailing on the MERITS of a foreclosure are very slim.  I agree.  Most of the homeowners that "gum up the gears" in a foreclosure do so because of MISTAKES by the foreclosure mills and by the PERJURY and FORGERY committed by the servicers. This come to the surface with good discovery and compelling the Plaintiff to answer. 


The strongest way to attack the Plaintiff is on evidence issues, NOT the merits.

P.S. 

As far as buying a certificate, if you read the prospective and PSA documents you will find that the certificate holders WAIVE most of their rights and indemnified the Trustee, Servicer, and other parties from their misdeeds.  The pensions that have these certificates are bringing their actions against companies that made the trusts such as Merrill Lynch rather than Trustees and Servicers.  But it is a funny idea..



Quote 0 0
floridapathy
While I appreciate the lengthy answers to the above questions, they also affirm my point that opinions of msfraud members lean toward no relief for homeowners wronged in the mortgage schemes. It seems the consensus here is that with good council, homeowners stand a small chance of slowing down the foreclosure process. This however sounds to me like comments from 2007-2009 when few if any homeowners prevailed against the banks. This is no longer the case, and almost daily, borrowers are winning their homes and the banks are continually exposed for comitting fraud upon the courts as a result. So there are good arguments in the securitization and chain of title theories, however, the gov has by now established almost all the illigalities of the mortgage fraud schemes in numerous lawsuits, and yet lawyers still act like they don't know who MERS, Docx, or Linda Green is. Give me a break.


Quote 0 0
Foley
floridapathy wrote:
It seems the consensus here is that with good council, homeowners stand a small chance of slowing down the foreclosure process.


No, it's the consensus from the Courts.  I'm in CA, been sitting in Court rooms, twice a week on my days off since August 2008.  The consensus here is an accurate representation of what I have witnessed in the Courts in CA in regards to homeowners.
Quote 0 0
Bill

floridapathy wrote:
While I appreciate the lengthy answers to the above questions, they also affirm my point that opinions of msfraud members lean toward no relief for homeowners wronged in the mortgage schemes. It seems the consensus here is that with good council, homeowners stand a small chance of slowing down the foreclosure process. This however sounds to me like comments from 2007-2009 when few if any homeowners prevailed against the banks. This is no longer the case, and almost daily, borrowers are winning their homes and the banks are continually exposed for comitting fraud upon the courts as a result. So there are good arguments in the securitization and chain of title theories, however, the gov has by now established almost all the illigalities of the mortgage fraud schemes in numerous lawsuits, and yet lawyers still act like they don't know who MERS, Docx, or Linda Green is. Give me a break.


You have to be realistic. 

1.  You signed loan documents, a note and mortgage, you were given money to purchase a home, you purchased a home, you lived in that home, you defaulted on the note

There ARE defenses to foreclosure, but most of the deficiencies can be FIXED by the bank so they CAN foreclose (see #1).  There is NO free rides.  A judge won't just give you a free house because you make a magical argument.  If you bought a $100,000.00 house SOMEONE is out 100K.  Equity will NOT allow you to have a 100k windfall. 

 
Quote:
This however sounds to me like comments from 2007-2009 when few if any homeowners prevailed against the banks. This is no longer the case, and almost daily, borrowers are winning their homes and the banks are continually exposed for committing fraud upon the courts as a result. So there are good arguments in the securitization and chain of title theories, however, the gov has by now established almost all the illigalities of the mortgage fraud schemes in numerous lawsuits, and yet lawyers still act like they don't know who MERS, Docx, or Linda Green is. Give me a break.



I think you have some misconceptions.  I wouldn't even say "borrowers are winning their homes" yearly, let alone daily.  There are a lot of people on this forum that follow foreclosure news DAILY.  I don't think there are more than 10 people that have "won their home".  I don't know if there are more than 5 that really have a house free and clear.  You could always start a thread to see what list we come up with, but it would be a VERY short list. 

I think you would also have a VERY short list of cases that PROVED fraud upon the court. 

With good counsel, a homeowner could delay foreclosure for YEARS in a judicial state.  But the note and mortgage just aren't going to go away.

A well informed and researched pro se can delay a foreclosure for YEARS.  I have been fighting foreclosure for several years pro se myself. 

You just need to have a very realistic expectation.  I suspect if you talk to a local attorney you will get a similar response.

Please feel free to post any cases you know of that someone got a free home or proved fraud upon the court.  I could have missed some, especially something recent, but I won't expect a long list. 
Quote 0 0
t

Quote:
This is no longer the case, and almost daily, borrowers are winning their homes and the banks are continually exposed for comitting fraud upon the courts as a result.

 

You can find no support for the assertion that that homeowners are "winning their homes" on a daily basis.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

This is the sort of nonsense being perpetrated by debt elimination scam swindlers.

 

In the post-robosigning era since Autumn 2010, there are two dramatic developments, particularly in judicial foreclosure states.  First, revelations about widespread robo-signing of affidavits has resulted in extensive delays in moving foreclosures forward, particularly when a borrower is represented and presents any valid and robust defense.  This has resulted in many delays.  It has only resulted in a handful of borrower victories.

 

These victories are measured by voluntary dismissals and extended delays.  Some dismissed cases have not yet been the subject of a re-filing.  But this does not mean that the borrower has won.  It simply means that the foreclosure is delayed and on hold.

 

Related to and separate from the chaos associated with robo-signed affidavits, courts are also congested as the result of collapse of foreclosure mill law firms in Florida and New York, the new attorney affirmation requirement in New York and other similar developments which have resulted in both confusion and court congestion.

 

In some instances, borrowers who have employed legally vacuous methods suggested by the swindlers have found their cases delayed by some of the other factors discussed above and confuse this delay for success in a totally ineffective defensive approach.  The borrower may falsely perceive that the use of the strategies suggested by swindlers has won a delay or has intimidated the plaintiff, when it is merely the post meltdown chaos which has caused the delay.

 

The second major development, also related to the robo-signing scandal, but also already underway and separate from the robo-signing, is an increasing string of appellate court decisions nationally on evidentiary issues, standing, and conditions precedent.  These decisions have resulted in reversals and some (standing) dismissals without prejudice.  Most of the evidentiary decisions have resulted in the reversal and remand of summary judgments.

 

While these certainly should be counted as borrower victories, they hardly reflect a borrower actually ultimately prevailing and preventing a foreclosure.  The remanded case is sent back in the trial court.  The borrower might win and might lose, depending upon how the matter is resolved at trial.

 

floridapathy, there is much reason for encouragement and with a robust and viable defense, a foreclosure might be averted for some time, ONLY the swindlers are holding out the false hope that the borrower is LIKELY to ultimately prevail.  Only by falsely holding out these myths that the borrow is likely to prevail can the swindlers persuade distressed borrowers to pay for a variety of totally useless documents, training aids, purported evidentiary material and even fees from crooked lawyers or scam artists engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

 

As Bill, ka, George, Mr. Lewis and others have been explaining, following the extensive published posts of Mr. Roper, there are a variety of viable defenses that a borrower can use to delay and possibly to even win.  But these are NOT based upon some inherent defect in the securitization or other real impairment in the plaintiff's right to enforce the promissory note and mortgage.

 

Rather, they reflect a wide variety of errors in the process of of bringing foreclosure, which errors usually CAN and WILL be corrected.

 

When you see a post where the mortgage investor and/or servicer is described as a "pretender lender", this is usually part of the vocabulary of the scam artists and swindlersYou need to disabuse yourself of the idea that there was any securitization failure or that there is any real impairment in the servicer's right to enforce the instrument.

 

This is NOT to say that you should admit to such a right or NOT RESIST the foreclosure.  To the contrary, the foreclosure can often be successfully forestalled and sometimes even beaten.  But this will ALWAYS be due to mistakes made by the plaintiff in litigation and evidentiary deficiencies rather than something that could be proven by reference to discovery of some additional documents within the control of the plaintiff.

 

There is no magic bullet which will result in a borrower winning!  There are only a variety of robust defensive strategies that are effective at delay and which may result in a win through forced evidentiary errors.

Quote 0 0
t

With each passing week, the body of appellate case law supporting Mr. Roper's suggested strategies grows.  With each passing week, the trial courts nationally continue to repudiate the failed strategies suggested by the swindlers.

 

Trolls such a Mike H. appear at the MS Fraud Forum to seek out new distressed borrowers so that they can swindle these using these myths and vacuous false strategies.

 

When challenged, neither Mike, nor any of his confederates can EVER identify cases where a borrower prevailed using their suggested strategies.  The wake of persons who have been cheated out of their last dollars, while losing their homes is, by contrast long.

 

Mike H., Christian Dix, Neil Garfield and others like them will burn in everlasting Hell for what they have done!  Hopefully, with aggressive criminal referrals, swindlers can be successfully prosecuted and held accountable for their frauds in this lifetime.

Quote 0 0
floridapathy
Thank Bill, T, Foley.

I do appreciate the time you took to reply. I am not concerned with challenging the securitization. My problem is foreclosures have been vacated because of defective mortgage pools. For instance, Deutsche Bank was supposed to be the trust for millions of mortgages, yet they admitted that they do not hold any, and that is why they settled with the government for 1 billion so that no one would go to jail.

BNY Mellon v. Roman Pino should settle the (fingers crossed) forged documents issue once and for all. For me personally, the issue lies in a fraudulent satisfaction  of mortgage and the originating lender that claims they no longer own the loan, however, the mortgage was signatured to MERS and no transfer has ever been recorded in the county record. The only way the servicer or deutsche could have obtained the mortgage was though MERS but in Florida, MERS can not transfer anything.

A disute was started with Litton loan, so they quickly transfered the servicing to OCWEN which arguably has no authority to collect anything, We have a dispute over the balance, the interest, monthly payment. Tried to rescind the mortgage, but no one responded. There is nothing we can do now besides stop paying.

"A free house" I don't think so, because almost 100k has been paid and there is no proof that the originator bought the debt from the previous lender in the refinance. We can prove we put up out 100k, can they prove they put out anything? NOPE. Wells Fargo is the "master servicer" for Quicken Loans, The loan was an FHA secured with Wells Fargo and refinanced with Quicken with no net benefit in terms or payment, and added 18k in fees just for 3k cash out that was not even requested. 3k was requested to pay off taxes 4 months after the refi, but the last day Quicken paid th etaxes and issued a check for the 3k instead. So we used the 3k to replacer our 18 year old carpets.

I haven't read the "seek equity, do equity" thoroughly, but I do know we can prove our investment, but can they? Can they with a fraudulent satisfaction, and numerous Tila, and Respa violations, servicing viloations, and no transfer recordation in the county?


Quote 0 0
Bill
floridapathy wrote:
Thank Bill, T, Foley.


A disute was started with Litton loan, so they quickly transfered the servicing to OCWEN which arguably has no authority to collect anything, We have a dispute over the balance, the interest, monthly payment. Tried to rescind the mortgage, but no one responded. There is nothing we can do now besides stop paying.


I haven't read the "seek equity, do equity" thoroughly, but I do know we can prove our investment, but can they? Can they with a fraudulent satisfaction, and numerous Tila, and Respa violations, servicing viloations, and no transfer recordation in the county?



Rather than "stop paying" the first thing you should do is go see an attorney.  They can tell you what your options are, IF you really have any violations, and answer any general questions (such as the impact of a failure to record documents).  It would really be in your best interest to do this BEFORE any default/foreclosure.  Many attorneys in FL offer many different payment options and will do a free consultation.  I know Mark Stopa offers different kinds of payment arrangements and seems to have a good grasp on foreclosure defense.  I'd bet you could get a consultation at little to no cost.  You could also get the opinion of a 2nd attorney.  You will have some flexibility because you are not "under the gun".

You really need to see an attorney.
Quote 0 0
John Lewis
Per Bill:  Mark Stopa is a fighter along with several others:

Matt Weidner

1229 Central Avenue
St. Petersburg Florida 33705
Phone: 727-894-3159
Fax: 727-213-6235

 

 

George M. Gingo, Attorney at Law
James E. Orth, Jr., Attorney at Law

2215 Garden Street, Ste. B, Titusville, Florida 32796

321-264-9624 Office

jamesorthlaw@gmail.com

ggingo@yahoo.com

 

 

Ice Legal

1015 N. State Road 7~ Suite D
Royal Palm Beach, FL 33411
Phone: 1.561.729.0530
Fax: 1.866.507.9888
Email:
mail@icelegal.com


Quote 0 0
Eric

floridapathy,

 

In some very early posts as well as some more recent discussions, Mr. Roper has emphasized that borrowers should first consider their alternatives through the prism of their net equity in the property and other financial circumstances.  He emphasizes that where a borrower has substantial equity in the property that preserving that equity is the most important consideration, but when the borrower has little or no equity and faces other financial adversity, that strategic default makes sense.

 

I would encourage you to read these early posts by Mr. Roper and also search for others using keywords you see in these discussions:

 

AMC/ARGENT/CITI-RESIDENTIAL

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/AMCARGENTCITIRESIDENTIAL-2395041

 

Not sure if this is the right place or not....

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Not-sure-if-this-is-the-right-place-or-not....-2402016

 

These posts are about as timely and informative as they were when first posted by Mr. Roper four years ago and are far more useful than Mike. H.'s contemporaneous predictions about gold prices.

 

Or you could just turn over your life savings to Mike H. and let him litigate your foreclosure (even though he is not a lawyer and is merely a criminal engaged in the unauthorized practice of law), losing both your home and your life savings.

 

Mr. Roper's posts are FREE!

Quote 0 0
floridapathy
Thanks again for the response.

I have spoken with numerous attorneys. One wanted more in legal fees than the house is worth, and would only respresent us after default. The other attorney thought we had a good case but had no idea who MERS was, or what robo-signing is.

Weidner would not respond to email, as his office requested, and ICE was not interested. A few others seemed like scammers, but the majority I've spoken with wanted us to default first.

When we refi'd, the originator did not tell us that our previous loan was being paid down. We did not find this out until after closing while reading the dox. We refinanced because the interest rate on the previous loan would eventually reset, and although it was intrest only, the balance was being paid down because the line of credit was being paid off. We did not know this, the new lender did not tell us, and instead gave us some new arm mortgage that appeared to be more affordable but come to find out their payment comparison did not include escrow as did the previous mortgage when comparing the two payments.

We contacted the lender for a 30yr mortgage, we got a 30yr something or other piece of crap because they said the LTV was too high. That was also a lie because the DTI was what was too high at 60%+. So they gave us a verbal promise to refinance in two or three years which they had no intention of honoring, and it was not because of the housing market at that time. I know because I have a quote from Wachovia 2008 for a 30yr fixed mortgage, and the house did not even need to re-appraise for as much as the refinance originally had. It was not that they couldn't put us in a 30yr fixed, they just didn't want to because now as we have all found out, the toxic RMBS were their sacred cash cow, both in up front fees and interest, and later foreclosures for desert.
Quote 0 0
ka

Quote:
When we refi'd, the originator did not tell us that our previous loan was being paid down. We did not find this out until after closing while reading the dox.

 

I have no idea what you are trying to say.  Are you asserting that you didn't know that the purpose of a refinance was to pay off the old loan with the proceeds of the new loan?

 

Quote:
We did not know this, the new lender did not tell us, and instead gave us some new arm mortgage that appeared to be more affordable but come to find out their payment comparison did not include escrow as did the previous mortgage when comparing the two payments.

 

The standard subprime origination fraud was to make oral representations and then to substitute in the real business terms of the loan in the written documents at closing.  You should have read the documents at closing.

 

The written documents usually supersede all prior oral representations and agreements and preclude you from asserting terms different than those that appear in these documents.

 

Moreover, your quarrel is mostly with the originator of the loans.  The mortgage investor that purchased these loans and the servicer now servicing these loans was not the entity that defrauded you and these will interpose holder in due course immunity to avoid any responsibility for the fraud.

 

You probably have a proof problem, a limitations problem, a problem finding an entity you can hold responsible that is still in business, a holder in due course problem, etc.

 

If you have remaining equity in the property, then you probably ought to try to salvage that equity and get out from under an oppressive loan.  If the loan is underwater, then you need to decide whether you want to strategically default.

 

If you think that you are going to sue someone for the origination fraud and win, you are delusional.

 

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...