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

On my Motgage it lists,"Mers" as a nominee for lender and the lendors successers or assigns. "Mers is the morgagee under this Security Instument."

In researching my mortgage the "mers" web site lists Wells Fargo as servicer and Freddie Mac as the owner.
"Investor: Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation"

A search on the Freddie Mac site comes up as:
"Yes. Our records show that Freddie Mac is the owner of your mortgage."

It was a conforming 30 year loan, a company called Provident Funding was the mortgage broker I worked with.
Does this mean Freddie Mac originated and kept the loan and that the loan was not securitized or bundled.

And does it mean that a "quiet title action" or other clouded mortgage note ownership defense due to "Mers" would be futile.


Quote 0 0

And does it mean that a "quiet title action" or other clouded mortgage note ownership defense due to "Mers" would be futile. 

A "quiet title defense" is almost always futile.  The "quiet title defense" is a core element of a swindle perpetrated by so call "debt elimination scams".

Criminals who pretend to be interested in helping distressed borrowers persuade the borrower to give the swindler money to obtain the swindler's assistance in preparing to extinguish the debt through this purported "quiet title" action.  The distressed borrower gives the swindler some large sum of money.  The distressed borrower then files some nonsensical paperwork that purports to initiate this quiet title fiction.

When the borrower then loses his or her home, the swindler tells the borrower this is because the judge was corrupt, incompetent or otherwise dishonest.  The borrower is always told that quiet title is a sure thing.  The borrower is led to believe that only this particular borrower has been unsuccessful in obtaining quiet title to the property, as if there exists some large body of successful beneficiaries of this scam.

In fact, only a handful of borrowers nationally have ever prevailed using a quiet title defense and these were either exceptional situations or instances where the mortgage lender or investor erroneously failed to answer or defend against the quiet title action and the borrower won by default.

If you are approached by someone who is peddling a debt elimination scam under the pretext of "quiet title", you should report this person to your local DA and your state's attorney general.

There is much useful information at this site about actual viable defenses.  There are also swindlers lurking at this site who, upon seeing that you are a fool who might be parted from his money, will possibly contact you and try to sell you some quiet title defense paperwork.
Quote 0 0
Thanks KA.

Right now I'm working directly with the Mortgage Servicer Wells Fargo to modify the mortgage either through HAMP or an alternate program.

I have not been contacted by anyone else and initiated contact myself with Wells Fargo about 3 months ago.
I'm current on my morgage.

As to the question of who owns my mortgage based on the information I found is it definitly Freddie Mac?

Quote 0 0
As to the question of who owns my mortgage based on the information I found is it definitly Freddie Mac?

Where Freddie Mac claims to own your mortgage and this is also reflected in the MERS records, this is likely to be true or at least near true.

Bear in mind that Freddie Mac owns some loans outright.  In other instances, Freddie was the guarantor of loans for which it acts in essence as trustee for mortgage pass through certificates.

When Freddie owns the loan outright, it appears as an asset on Freddie's books.  When securitized into Freddie pass through securities, the loan is accounted for as NOT being owned by Freddie, that is, these loans will NOT be shown as assets on Freddie's books, but Freddie will be shown to have contingent liability under the guaranty.

From the borrower's perspective, this is really a distinction without a difference.  Freddie claims to own both loans and this is reflected in the same way in the MERS and Freddie databases to which you refer.

If you are NOT in default, then it is in your interest to AVOID any declaration of default UNLESS the net equity in your property is at or near zero or is negative.  If you have substantial net negative equity, you need to carefully assess whether your interests are better served by a modification or a strategic default.  Do NOT make this decision lightly!

Generally, both Fannie and Freddie ran tighter ships in terms of both loan documentation and delivery into securitization than the subprime shops.  Both Fannie and Freddie had decades of experience in handling sustained securitization volumes before the bubble.  By contrast, the larger subprime operators sprung up almost overnight and then strained under a crush of volume during the bubble.

This is NOT to say that the originators of the loan were careful.  And during the bubble, both Fannie and Freddie were very careless, particularly with compliance and due diligence issues.
Quote 0 0


Thanks I needed clarification to see if there were any legal issues or errors in the note that gave me extra negotiating power in the modification process.


So, if I’m not eligible for one of the government programs, I now know to take the best deal I can get and not to get smart by threatening any action based on Mers.


I’m disabled and love our condo, luckily we are not to far underwater but the payments are eating our savings to the point the negative cash flow without a modification would totally deplete all our assets within 10 years, less if the stock market fails to recover at all or crashes further.


When I was forced to retire I had in excess of 1 million dollars and now have less then half of that and my wife and I are only 60.


Thanks again ka, I really appreciate you taking the time to answer, as well as your vast knowledge.


It's really great that you take the time to help people, especially in their time of need and with something so complex and important to them and their family.


At a time of extreme stress and pressure it’s easy to lose faith in all mankind and in god.


Bless you and your family, they should be very proud of the type of person you are.


Quote 0 0

There are a handful of folks who have totally prevailed in foreclosure litigation nationally.  In most of these instances, the borrower was a defendant and the plaintiff was shown to have engaged in particularly egregious fraud on the court or other misconduct.

When measured against the volume of foreclosures which proceeded to completion with the loss of the borrower's home, the odds are probably much better in your state's lottery.

When a default is unavoidable and inevitable, as when a borrower's loss of income or serious unexpected expenses make paying the note impossible, or when a borrower elects to engage in a strategic default, resolute borrowers defending in judicial foreclosure states have often done remarkably well in at least forestalling foreclosure.

If one has elected to strategically default, then drawing out the foreclosure process and living in the property payment free can sometimes help to further improve the economics of a bad situation.  This is NOT without cost, though.  The borrower's credit suffers and credit recovery will take far longer than would be the case with a negotiated short sale or deed in lieu.

When the borrower's credit is already in shambles, as is often the case with subprime borrowers, and the borrower lacks other resources which can be readily reached through a deficiency judgment, the decision as to whether to move on or fight is often starker.

Where a borrower has otherwise good credit and substantial liquid resources, finding the workout and/or amicable resolution is almost always better.

BE VERY CAREFUL IN PRESENTING THE LENDER WITH A ROADMAP TO YOUR LIQUID RESOURCES IN APPLYING FOR A MODIFICATION.  The effect of the size and character of your retirement savings is actually counterintuitive.

The lenders are most eager to do a modification or workout when they do the math and find that THEY make out better as a consequence of the workout than they would in proceeding to foreclosure.

To the extent that you are in a judicial foreclosure state and SHOW THE LENDER a roadmap to your liquid retirement savings, this might simply persuade the servicer or the foreclosure mill law firm that there is MORE MONEY to be had by bleeding you dry and proceeding to foreclosure.  While retirement savings in 401K or Keogh retirement arrangements may be beyond the reach of the lender, other liquid savings might be readily available to satisfy a deficiency judgment.  Idenifying these savings in modfication paperwork could be very much to your detriment.

Do NOT undertake negotiations with any view in mind that the servicer or foreclosure mill is trying to help you out.  THIS IS NEVER THE CASE.  They are simply trying to HELP THEMSELVES OUT.

Bear in mind that some of the contract foreclosure operators (e.g. LPS) are also vertically integrated.  Not only do they provide foreclosure management services, but they also profit from REO sales and other downstream profits arising out of a completed foreclosure.  While it might be in the investor's best interests to do a modification, it may be far more profitable for both the foreclosure mill and LPS for the matter to proceed to a completed foreclosure.  While paperwork submitted in the modification process usually cannot be used against you in court, this does NOT mean that the servicer isn't planning on using the paperwork against you.  By having you repeatedly reapply and resubmit paperwork, they develop an in depth knowledge of your finances and will use this to aggressively pursue collection of a deficiency judgment several years down the line.  Be GUARDED in the information you voluntarily share!     
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...