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
I plan a suit for reconveyance against GEM Inc.. They are lendor of origin and only assignment on Deed Of Trust along with MERS, of course. My scenario, lendor A (GEM) sells to lender B (GE-WMC) to C (Option One H&R Block) who sells to D (Chase) who is now serviceing it in an ABS for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee for  Morgan Stanley ABS Capital 1 Inc trust. and. In my favor GE-WMC out of business and Option One out of Business. Do I have a case? I am not in foreclosure yet. All this movement happened in less than 6 months with no paper trail. I have found my mortgage in EDGAR pooled with more than 7000 other loans original value of ABS $1.3B peeked around $2.4B and now is at $890M with 563 investors.

So I need an Attorney.

Thanks Robert
Quote 0 0
     Since you are not yet in foreclosure, you are in a Trust Deed state and it
was a MERS mortgage, my opinion would be that you are a perfect candidate
to file a Quiet Title action. For this you will need an experienced real estate
attorney who knows how and has experience doing quiet titles. They are hard to find. Look for a lawyer who handles tax deeds, since they usually
require a QT.
     Also, you might want to educate yourself about QT in the local law library, it's the wave of the future!
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.

Quote:
Robert P. said:

My scenario, lendor A (GEM) sells to lender B (GE-WMC) to C (Option One H&R Block) who sells to D (Chase) who is now serviceing it in an ABS for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital 1 Inc trust. and.  In my favor GE-WMC out of business and Option One out of Business


Robert P.:

Start by getting your facts right!

Option One Mortgage Corporation exited the mortgage business on April 30, 2008.  It also sold its mortgage servicing rights that day to American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.

But Option One still exists.  On June 5, 2008, Option One Mortgage Corporation changed its name to the Sand Canyon Corporation and went into hiding.  Sand Canyon is a subsidiary of HR Block.

But Sand Canyon owns neither mortgages nor servicing rights.

See the affidavit of Sand Canyon President Dale SUGIMOTO filed in the In Re Wilson case:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/46562142/In-Re-Wilson-Affidavit-of-Dale-M-SUGIMOTO-Pres-of-Sand-Canyon-19-Mar-2009


Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
Robert P. said: 
Do I have a case?  I am not in foreclosure yet.


If you are now CURRENT and have positive equity in your property, you should do your utmost to REMAIN CURRENT.

If you are already in default and/or have a significant net negative equity in the subject property, you need to explore your alternatives right away.

This should BEGIN with a clear and realistic understanding of the economics of your situation.

You should AVOID Charlatans and wingnuts like Mike H. like the plague!

*

You should definitely speak to one or more attorneys before taking ANY ACTIONs which result in default, which draw attention to yourself or which communicate information about your situation to your adversaries.

In most situations, bringing an action against the purported Lender as a quiet title, reconveyance or otherwise is extremely UNSOUND.  Get good legal counsel!
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
Mike H. said:
Also, you might want to educate yourself about QT in the local law library, it's the wave of the future!


While you are at the library, it couldn't hurt to study alien abductions and perpetual motion machines.

Space aliens are known to abduct homeless people.  And if you follow Mike's advice, you are likely to be homeless sooner.

Perhaps you could use a perpetual motion machine to heat your homeless shelter while avoiding space aliens!
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
There is a Western Washington attorney shown amongst the list of graduates of Max GARDNER's Foreclosure Boot Camp:

Brad Gibson
Gibson Law Firm

2600 2nd Ave. #217
Seattle, WA 98121
(206) 852-8422

(See e-mail address at link)

See:


http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=4947633


*

I am UNACQUAINTED with this attorney and his work.  But Max GARDNER is highly recommended.  Perhaps Mr. GIBSON can identify one or more candidates in Eastern Washington State.

I would encourage you to locate, meet with and interview MORE THAN ONE ATTORNEY.  Start early.  The really capable defense attorneys are VERY BUSY.  Even the marginal defense attorneys are very busy.
Quote 0 0
George Burns
Why reconveyance?

I thought reconveyance was only applicable if the mortgage has been satisfied.

Since you have an existing mortgage balance, wouldn't that prohibit a Deed of Reconveyance action from being the first step?

The fact that an entity has gone out of business is irrelevant if they sold and properly transferred their block of "business" to another entity.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
George Burns said:
Why reconveyance?

I thought reconveyance was only applicable if the mortgage has been satisfied.

George:

I fear that Robert P. has been drinking the wingnut Kool-Aide!
 
While the mortgage foreclosure fraud meltdown has tied the banksters in knots, he wants to rush over and kick over the bee hive to get immediate attention so that he can lose his property right away.
Quote 0 0
Robert P.
If you have good advice then give it. If not say nothing at all.

My loan was never properly assigned nor did they follow the rule of law.

I got into an 80/20 with the low payment because I was told I could refi. easily before it adjusted with good payment history ( told to me by GEM ). This was all a lie, by the time my mortgage started to adjust the bubble had burst. I tried refi. with other lenders nothing, I tried refi with Chase my servicer although at the time I actually thought they owened my loan. Chase would not help me in a refi..  I have learned that the security I am pooled with has to perform at a certian rate which kills any chance of refi. at its origin, also the reason they denied my request to lock in my rate before it adjusted. The way I see it Gem got paid by WMC who intern was paid by Option One who transferred it to Chase, Deutsche, Morgan Stanley,Capital 1 who were paid by the investors and the investors were paid for a non performing security by the FDIC. I think rescission also is in the cards after the reconveyance.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
Robert P. said:
If you have good advice then give it.  If not say nothing at all.

My loan was never properly assigned nor did they follow the rule of law.

I got into an 80/20 with the low payment because I was told I could refi. easily before it adjusted with good payment history ( told to me by GEM ). This was all a lie, by the time my mortgage started to adjust the bubble had burst. I tried refi. with other lenders nothing, I tried refi with Chase my servicer although at the time I actually thought they owened my loan. Chase would not help me in a refi.. I have learned that the security I am pooled with has to perform at a certian rate which kills any chance of refi. at its origin, also the reason they denied my request to lock in my rate before it adjusted. The way I see it Gem got paid by WMC who intern was paid by Option One who transferred it to Chase, Deutsche, Morgan Stanley,Capital 1 who were paid by the investors and the investors were paid for a non performing security by the FDIC. I think rescission also is in the cards after the reconveyance.

 
Robert P.:
 
I already pointed to the fallacy of your assertion that Option One is "out of business".  (You have managed to instantly alienate and push away one of the nation's leading experts on fraud in Option One transactions.)
 
It is rather clear that you do not desire for Forum participants to clutter your head with facts, law or any dissonant arguments which are inconsistent with your preconconceived wingnut theory that you are entitled to a reconveyance.
You may be quite assured that I have very little interest in coming to the aid of an unappreciative hard head who is in denial and is seeking only affirmation and praise rather than constructive assistance.  You are NOT a candidate for help in preserving the ownership of your property.  Rather, you are a condidate to be ripped off and deceived by the proponents of wingnut theories.
 
After you LOSE your property, your credit and find yourself homeless, you will no doubt take much solace in your certainty that everyone was conspiring against you, including those who sought to help steer you away from calamuty!  Best of luck in your quest!
Quote 0 0
George Burns
Robert P

After being a participant on various Boards/Forums for manny year, I have come to realize that some people are not very good at writing or at explaining their situation. However, I have to say that what you posted, especially #9 makes no sense. Maybe you want to repost.

How do you know that your "loan was not properly assigned"?
Did you mean mortgage or did you really mean "loan"?
Do you understand the difference between the Note and the Deed of Trust?

In another thread a poster pointed out that in Texas QT reuires satisfaction of the Note. What does your state require?

It is pointless to be wnating to take specific action without first knowing what conditions etc are  required to precede the action, and the consequencies of that action.

You seem to be jumping to conclusions and puting the cart BEFORE the horse. 
Quote 0 0
Robert P.
Since I am lacking in proper education of these issues this article speaks for me.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

After months of wrangling with the obvious due process issues invovled in allowing a Trustee on the Deed of Trust to send a Notice of Default, Notice of Default and to file an eviction (unlawful detainer), it has occurred to me that the reasoning behind “non-judicial” process can be turned on its head in favor of the homeowner.

The reason why non-judicial foreclosure is NOT a denial of due process is two-fold:

(1) public policy and judicial economy favors it because until the mortgage meltdown era, nearly all judicial foreclosures had the same pattern, to wit: Suit in Foreclosure with Summons, No Answer by the the borrower, clerk’s default entered, Motion for Entry of Default Final Judgment, Judgment entered, Sale date is set, Auction on the courthouse steps and that’s it. It was a rare case in which the borrower had any legitimate defenses and virtually impossible for the foreclosing party to be the wrong party bring the suit. The title record was clear, the bank held the note and mortgage, and but for some relatively minor TILA or RESPA issues it was highly unusual for predatory lending to be a factor in the case, and even if it was, the borrower simply didn’t raise it. Today, none of those assumption are true. Virtually all mortgages between 2001-2008 were between an undisclosed investor or group of investors and the borrower who was funded from proceeds of sales of unregulated securities. Everyone in between was merely an undisclosed conduit or middleman collecting an undisclosed fee as the money from the investor was parsed out for fees, profits, insurance premiums, rebates, kickbacks and of course funding of the alleged loan transaction. None of these middlemen have any loss, claim, or right to foreclose property and all of them have been superceded by the authority of the holders of mortgage backed securities. Even the Trustee on the Deed of Trust has been superceded by at least two other Trustees. They don’t have the note, they don’t have the full record of all the parties who collected fees or paid the principal or interest on the note and mortgage, and they don’t really have any stake in the outcome of the foreclosure — because they didn’t fund the loan or lose any money.

(2) Under the legal theories that purport to support non-judicial foreclosure, it is said that non judicial foreclosure is a matter of private contract and not state action. Thus, the theory goes, parties are free to contract amongst themselves for authority to sell the property when the loan is reported by some party (alleging to be the beneficiary under the Deed of Trust). So anything the Trustee does that is wrong is really a matter of breach of contract, not violation of due process. If the Trustee on the deed of trust lacks authority, if the beneficiary is out of business and some other party is alleging it is now the new beneficiary, if anyone with or without knowledge alleges that the loan is in default and they are wrong or acting wrongfully, it is a matter of private contract, not subject to the rules of civil procedure governing the conduct of lawsuits in state or Federal Court. It is a contract authorizing “self-help”. Thus I conclude that the homeowner is equally entitles to utilize self-help to preserve his interest in his real property. Of course filing a notice of intent to preserve interest in real property, a notice of non-compliance with statute, or some other instrument that clouds title could force the conversion to a judicial foreclosure where the Trustee and beneficiary would be required to step forward and reveal the true holder in due course, account for the flow of the funds paid thus far, etc. But adding the force of Federal Law (TILA, RESPA and HOEPA), and applicable state laws on deceptive lending practices, and applicable common law to the permission to use self-help gives the homeowner greater power than the entities that seek to use self-help to foreclose. By filing a Qualified Written Request, Federal Law requires an answer and resolution. Barring that resolution, and using the common law doctrine of tacit procuration as a tool of enforcement at the end of the QWR, the homeowner has a legal right under color of state and federal law to file an instrument or reconveyance as attorney in fact for the “beneficiary” of record — forcing the “pretender lender” to either back off or prove their case.

REMEMBER, YOUR GOAL IS NOT TO ALLEGE THAT YOU DON’T OWE THE MONEY AT ALL. YOUR GOAL IS TO ALLEGE THAT IF YOU DO OWE MONEY IT IS NOT TO THE TRUSTEE OR THE PARTY PRETENDING TO BE THE BENEFICIARY. BASED UPON THE SEC FILINGS THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT YOUR LOAN WAS HANDLED AND TRANSFERRED, SOLD, SLICED AND DICED MANY TIMES. DESPITE THE CURRENT TREND OF COUNTRYWIDE AND OTHERS TO SAY THIS INFORMATION IS CONFIDENTIAL, THERE ARE VERY FEW JUDGES THAT WOULD AFFIRM THAT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KNOW THE IDENTITY OF YOUR REAL LENDER. YOUR POINT IN GOING TO COURT IS NOT TO SAY THAT YOU AUTOMATICALLY WIN AND THEY LOSE. YOUR POINT IS TO SAY THAT YOU WISH TO BE HEARD ON THE MERITS OF THE DEFENSES, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS YOU HAVE AND THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE THE RIGHT OF DISCOVERY ALL UNDER THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

Quote 0 0
George Burns
There is no authorship  attribution, source, date or even a cite, so there is no way to know if the excerpt was, or was not, taken out of context. There is also no way of knowing what issue it is addressing, its relevance or its credibility. I am not even sure where the excerpt starts..

However, it states:
... " YOUR POINT IS TO SAY THAT YOU WISH TO BE HEARD ON THE MERITS OF THE DEFENSES, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS YOU HAVE AND THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE THE RIGHT OF DISCOVERY ALL UNDER THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE."

I hope that you realize that it is mainly addressing the Defendant's point of view. You would be the Plaintiff and be at a severe disadvantage.
Quote 0 0
steve
Quote:
Since I am lacking in proper education of these issues this article speaks for me.

 
The article doesn't just speak for you.  It cries out. 
 
It says "the person posting me (the ludicrous message) to this message board is a gullible fool who gets his information from kooky Internet posts and is content to make a point by losing his home and becoming homeless".
 
Then it goes on to say that "the poster is so foolish that he reposts garbage to web sites where people of intelligence dwell (and exchange real and meaningful information) and is so naive as to think that he will persuade the more knowledgable and better informed message board participants of anything other than his total ignorance".
 
A perusal of other posts reveals that the poster Robert thinks that by attacking the better informed people trying to help him, that he can bring them down to his level and that everyine can lose their house by abandoning well thought out and disciplined approaches to foreclosure defense and instead following incoherent garbage.
 
Finally, the posts indicate that instead of coming to the site to learn, Robert has come to the site to teach us about foreclosure defense, which is, of course, the most ludicrous and preposterous aspect of his posts.  All hail Robert!
 
Robert might have searched or scrolled through years of useful material within Forum posts and found something helpful or viable, but instead chooses to pollute the board with false, misleading and unfortunate information.  He is clearly unworthy of our company or help.  I suggest that we henceforth simply ignore him until he goes away. 
 
(Maybe Mike H. can make a few $$$ off of Robert before he becomes homeless.)
Quote 0 0
dave

robert does not need an attorney.  he needs a good psychiatrist.

Quote 0 0
dave

Quote:
robert: Spread the word

should have read:  "spread the ignorance".

thanks robert. you have really enlightened us.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...