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
humbly
Assuming the FNMA's website data is correct, a WAMU-to-FNMA securitization  occurred in 2003 resulting in MBS Pool #CL-701969.

After extensive data queries it appears Pool #CL-701969 is in two different FNMA REMICS:

  1. http://www.efanniemae.com/syndicated/documents/mbs/remiccollateral_hdr/2003-55-Group4.txt
  2. http://www.efanniemae.com/syndicated/documents/mbs/remiccollateral_hdr/2005-92-Group1.txt
Has anyone encountered a similar circumstance and does anyone identify the situation as suspect (GSE or otherwise)?

Has anyone made any progress in locating a FNMA servicing contract, i.e PSA, corresponding to their Pool/CUSIP/Trust data?



Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.

Quote:
humbly said:

Has anyone made any progress in locating a FNMA servicing contract, i.e PSA, corresponding to their Pool/CUSIP/Trust data? 


There are NO Fannie PSAs per pool.  Fannie's sellers and servicers agree by contract to conform to the Fannie Mae Seller's and Servicers' Guides which Fannie is entitled to change.  The Fannie Guides are online at the eFannie website.

These have been available online with total transparency throughout the mortgage market meltdown.  You can STOP LOOKING for Fannie PSAs at the SEC web site because there are NOT ANY THERE.
Quote 0 0
humbly
In addition, a third reference to FNMA Pool #701969 is described:

Markit Agency Derivatives

The Markit IOS, Markit PO and Markit MBX indices are synthetic Total Return Swap index series that allow investors to gain exposure to the interest and principal components of agency mortgage pools. The original IOS indices launched on March 12, 2010 were built to reference the interest component of three coupons of Fannie agency pools (4%, 4.5%, and 5%). Since then, subsequent indices have been launched referencing additional coupons and GSEs.

Three spreadsheets referencing FNMA Pool #701969 are linked @:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1273&bih=656&q=%2231400y2a3%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

While everyone at MSF.org is appreciated, I will be humbly grateful to anyone offering insight.

Quote 0 0
humbly
@ Mr. Roper:

I want to thank you generally for ALL of your generous contribution, and specifically in this instance for the availability and location of FNMA's Selling & Servicing Guides (in possession).

Somewhere in the FNMA documents (Trust Indenture/Servicing Guide/Base Prospectus/Supplemental Prospectus) is a reference to a required servicing contract for the REMIC trust. Is that a document only available via discovery, as you've suggested in a previous post?

Quote 0 0
humbly
@ Mr. Roper:

The point of the exhaustive search for a specific FNMA servicing contract is to locate the closing date for a transfer of a promissory note into a MBS pool in the REMIC,  particularly in this instance where there is a REMIC established in 2003, and then a second REMIC established in 2007, wherein FNMA Pool #701969 is.

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.

Quote:
humbly said:
In addition, a third reference to FNMA Pool #701969 is described:

Markit Agency Derivatives

The Markit IOS, Markit PO and Markit MBX indices are synthetic Total Return Swap index series that allow investors to gain exposure to the interest and principal components of agency mortgage pools.  The original IOS indices launched on March 12, 2010 were built to reference the interest component of three coupons of Fannie agency pools (4%, 4.5%, and 5%).  Since then, subsequent indices have been launched referencing additional coupons and GSEs.

. . .

While everyone at MSF.org is appreciated, I will be humbly grateful to anyone offering insight.


Anyone can create an index and can choose to include whatever data series they choose in such an index. 

If, for example, I created an index of the daily temperatures of U.S. cities with city name beginning with letter "A" -- Abilene (TX), Akron (OH), Albuquerque (NM), Altoona (PA), Albany (NY), Amarillo (TX), Anchorage, Athens (GA), Augusta (GA), Austin (TX) -- the compilation and publication of such an index does not imply (a) my presence in any of these cities, (b) my direct observation of the temperatures in any of these places, (c) my influence or ownership of weather data in such places, (d) my right to exclude the temperatures s occuring in such cities from other competing indices, such as an index of Texas cities or an index of cities North of a particular latitude.

I could also compile baseball statistics for players with the first name "Brian" who are over six feet tall.  But this will not entitle me to a share of their salary nor preclude others from compiling other different statistics.

I can even add the cash flows from FNMA Pool #701969 to Brians' (over six feet tall) batting average hitting against left handed pitchers with runners on base.  The inclusion the the cash flows from this FNMA pool to the batting average is likely to distort the results and create an even more meaningless statistic.  But it will NOT entitle me to a share of the pool cash flows nor a share of Brians' earnings. 

In short, the inclusion of a particular trust certificate or series in ANY index is wholly irrelevant to your foreclosure case and about as useful as the statistics I suggest above.  Try to focus on the actual issues of your case rather than drifting off into the useless!
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.

Quote:
humbly said:

The point of the exhaustive search for a specific FNMA servicing contract is to locate the closing date for a transfer of a promissory note into a MBS pool in the REMIC, particularly in this instance where there is a REMIC established in 2003, and then a second REMIC established in 2007, wherein FNMA Pool #701969 is. 


humbly:

You are NOT going to find such a closing date in "FNMA servicing contract".  You are falsely assuming that Fannie Mae (and probably Freddie Mac) securitizations work like private RMBS securitizations.  This is not the case.

Moreover, you need to disabuse yourself of the theory that you are somehow going to prove a "securitization fail", to use the terminolgy being bandied about by persons with no actual understanding of mortgage securitization.

This is based upon a totally false paradigm!

You clearly have NOT been reading my other posts, or you simply choose to continue to delude yourself believing the misguided nonsense propogated by the likes of Yves Smith.

YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME! 

I would suggest that you read from the vast array of other actually useful posts describing a wealth of other actually effective defense strategies.  Or you can expend all of your energy tilting at windmills.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
Somewhere in the FNMA documents (Trust Indenture/Servicing Guide/Base Prospectus/Supplemental Prospectus) is a reference to a required servicing contract for the REMIC trust.  Is that a document only available via discovery, as you've suggested in a previous post? 

I am unsure what you mean by these assertions/questions.  Are you telling me that there is a reference to a required servicing contract?  Or are you asking me if this is the case?

Fannie Sellers and Servicers sign a contract with Fannie and agree to conform to the Fannie Guides.

What are you asking?  It appears that you didn't understand my prior answer.  The answers are also in the Fannie Seller and Servicer Guides.
 
I also already told you the answer.  But you didn't seem to believe me.  So you can read all 2,000 pages to make certain that I am right.  I have already read the Fannie Guides several times and have no intention of doing so again for you simply because you do not believe me and are unwilling to read it yourself!
Quote 0 0
humbly-to-pet rock
@ Mr. Roper:

Thank you for your generous replies. For the record, alone I disabuse my mind far too often -- without lubricant -- in the intercourse with the foreclosure subject matter. In fact, after reading through the above responses I sought comfort with the application of some cooling sauve ointment on my other brain, my derriere, so that I could sit again and reply. But I digress.

I think it is safe to say that I, like many others both here and elsewhere, have read a majority of your previous posts, which for good reason always gain my close attention. I appreciate and respect your knowledge and guidance, and should not have nor will ever again waste your time on either idices or some 2,000 (?) FNMA documents (which I have read repeatedly).

In this instance I was in the weeds, suspect, and sought other sets of eyes for a paradigm check, or shift, if necessary on the issue of the Pool # in three different "packages."  As far as I can tell, in terms of foreclosure offense/defense it was non-starter. So please do continue to share your critical analysis whenever and where ever the opportunity presents.

Also there is no disagreement that the intentionally concealed path of GSE securitization can be/is a waste of time, but we shouldn't throw the baby out just yet.
In terms of GSE securitization and a PSA equivalent, I see the probative value concerning closing date(s) and "bifurcation" of the Obligation/Security, but those paradigms will be posted in a separate thread.

Lastly, because the only thing I know is that I am as smart as a boulder, going forward my moniker will be -- pet rock -- so keep it simple for the both of us, agreed?



Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
humbly:

One of the most remarkable things about actually litigating with the foreclosure mills is that given the opportunity, the mills will make repeated and unexpected mistakes of the most egregious sort.  They are often very careless.  When they begin lying and/or fabricating evidence, they have great difficulty keeping their story straight.  And, typically, the lying and evidence fabrication begins with the very first judicial foreclosure filing.

In non-judicial foreclosure states, the foreclosure mills are cutting corners, too, though very often, this is less readily apparent.  It tends to become apparent most often in a Bankruptcy setting, where they immediately revert to traditional form and begin to lie and plead false evidence in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

What is necessary to prevail is to show up and to present basic, consistent arguments.  No wingnut theories are necessary.

Like playing chess, one capitalizes on one's opponents mistakes.  Because the foreclosure mills are so very careless, the mistakes will almost certainly be presented.  You need to press for advantage, give them more opportunities for blunders and prepare yourself to recognize and seize upon the mistakes.

Focus on the evidence.  Ask yourself precisely what the plaintiff needs to prove and the evidence that they are seeking to present to prove this.  And bear in mind that your job as the defendant is NOT to explain all of the facts to the court and lead the court to the truth.  Rather, your job is to seize upon your opporient's mistakes to defeat the case they present.  Very often, this can be done using the plaintiff' false and perjured evidence (which you need not concede or agree to, but merely might accept for the sake of argument).

There is certainly nothing wrong with asking a lot of questions.  In fact, this is a very good idea.  But think about your questions and the answers.  And always endeavor to use good common sense.  It seems that very often, common sense is uncommon!

NOTE: I AM NOT A LAWYER AND THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.
Quote 0 0
Bill

Quote:

Also there is no disagreement that the intentionally concealed path of GSE securitization can be/is a waste of time, but we shouldn't throw the baby out just yet.
In terms of GSE securitization and a PSA equivalent, I see the probative value concerning closing date(s) and "bifurcation" of the Obligation/Security, but those paradigms will be posted in a separate thread



Humbly,

You will find far more success following Mr. Roper's suggestions and focus on the deficiencies in the Plaintiff's evidence.  We constantly have posts by Pro Se litigants chasing the mystical three legged purple flying donkey named bifurcation.  Much like other mystical creatures, many have claimed to have seen it, know what it is, know where it is, but never can offer the proof.  Because YOU feel bifurcation has taken place, does not make it so.  Bifurcation is contrary to law in all jurisdiction and has not widely been accepted in ANY court of law.  Rather than bifurcation taking place, what usually has happened is on entity took an action that is void and without effect.

As a DEFENDANT, it is far more simple to do what the title suggests, defend your position.  Leave the burden of PROOF on the Plaintiff.  Your job is to raise questions of fact IN THE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT and poke as many holes in the Plaintiff's case as possible.  If you do this and have case law supporting these deficiencies, the Plaintiff may not lose, but won't be able to win and be granted the relief they seek.  



 

 


Quote 0 0
Write a reply...