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
stillinMyHome
I have been checking this trust for my loan. I can see loan numbers in it for loan paid off or loans in bankruptcy but not current loans. I see in a filing 10 k and 10 k/a that there is an item 2 properties but it says omitted. I requested from the SEC to get that document but all they send me is the same thing that I see online. How the heck can find out if your loan is where they it is? What's the big secret?
Quote 0 0
Squirrely
Don't ask those questions here. There people that'll bite your head off.
Quote 0 0
Since we are on this issue of trust what happens to what is in a trust when this happens
"Certification and Notice of Termination of Registration"
Quote 0 0
Texas
Just because some trust say they own it, does not mean that they own it.
Quote 0 0
Donna
This topic comes up over and over again at the Forum. Several of the Forum seniors answered this question multiple times over the past several years. They even cited Federal securities laws and SEC regulations. It appears that some of those posts may have been removed.

There is at least one remaining post by ka explaining this within the thread CountryWide Trust Doesn't Exist?:

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/CountryWide-Trust-Doesnt-Exist-2428284

You are no doubt still confused by the many posts here at the Forum and elsewhere which falsely assert that the trusts do not exist any more. This Internet myth is central to many debt elimination scam swindles. In order to swindle you through this scam, they need to first create a plausible story as to how you are going to end up debt free if only you employ the swindlers.

These swindlers operate many web sites and advertise on others. Whenever the truth is explained, they attack the person who reveals their fraud.
Quote 0 0
T-Bill
go here for thread topics

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/search?searchid=19617224
Quote 0 0
T-Bill

excellant discussion re: Adam Levitin's argument 'NY Trust' rules etc. at "Roper -- 12/05/10 at 09:55 PM mark.

Foreclosure and the UCC
http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Foreclosure-and-the-UCC-4998881

also great question/answer re: Foreclosure and the UCC (the title) as it relates to MERS and the mortgage.

Quote 0 0
stillinMyHome
The question about the trust existing wasn't the point. It more about standing. If the loan was sold again after a loan mod and placed in another trust and your being foreclosed on by the former trust would this not be a standing issue? Also trying to find if your loan is in said trust independently is almost impossible. The bank seems to have that wrapped up pretty good so it would it very hard for anyone to prove or disprove whether they loan is in a particular trust. I would go as far to say a great deal of fraud would happen because of this.
Quote 0 0
stillinMyHome
I was told by the servicer that the loan was being placed with a new investor at the time of the loan mod. I do know about the wing theory guys and avoid them.
Quote 0 0
Texas
"new investor", would that be a new secured creditor or unsecured creditor???

Could depend upon admissions made.
Quote 0 0
stillinMyHome
Not really sure. They just gave me the name "EMC" I am looking for the documentation that says that.
Quote 0 0
T-Bill
Still in my home -- plez plez read this post authored by William A. Roper Jr. -- then consider ur path....

The Folly of Attacking Rather Than Embracing the Assignment Forgery: Harvey v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/The-Folly-of-Attacking-Rather-Than-Embracing-the-Assignment-Forgery-Harvey-v.-Deutsche-Bank-National-5374903?highlight=folly+attacking+embracing+assignment
Quote 0 0
Texas
stillinmyhome, I would heed T-Bill
Quote 0 0
stillinMyHome
I thank you for your advice I am not attacking the note as the article implies but I am arguing the the note listed as an exhibit with no indorsement and then bringing it in later with an indorsement and is not listed as an exhibit.
Quote 0 0
stillinMyHome
Also I was served and then an assignment was registered with the county. So I think this posting from Mr. Roper applies here but I could be as I that has been pointed out before.
http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/Saratoga-NY-Supreme-Court-Justice-Dismisses-Foreclosure-Due-To-Lack-of-Plaintiff-Standing-2824151?highlight=retroactive+assignments
Quote 0 0
stillinMyHome
I meant I could be wrong as has been pointed out before.
Quote 0 0
Texas

Excerpts From

 

ARTICLES

REWRITING FRANKENSTEIN

CONTRACTS: WORKOUT

PROHIBITIONS IN RESIDENTIAL

MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES

ANNA GELPERN*

ADAM J. LEVITIN

 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1323546

 

(Page 1077)

At the heart of the global financial collapse are two kinds of rigid contracts. The first is the residential mortgage contract, which becomes problematic when too many homeowners cannot pay what they owe and yet cannot modify their debts. The second is the pooling and servicing agreement (“PSA&rdquo, which governs the management of securitized mortgage loan pools. PSAs are designed to preclude or severely constrain the modification of both the securitization arrangement and the underlying mortgages. Both mortgage contract and PSA rigidities can fuel foreclosures on a large scale, with spillover effects on communities, financial institutions, financial markets, and the macroeconomy.

 

(Page 1078)

Securitization has been described as financial alchemy, a process that can change unremarkable financial assets into valuable ones, like lead into gold.7 Although medieval alchemists contributed much to science and industry, they never made gold and failed to achieve their grandest promise of eternal life. Recent experience in the largest securitization market, residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS&rdquo, conjures up less wholesome tales of scientific progress.

 

(Page 1095)

“To make bankruptcy remoteness meaningful, the vehicle must be protected from the misfortunes both of the originator who sold the mortgage loans and those of the original debtors. The first of these objectives is achieved with a “true sale”—ensuring that the originator does not retain a residual interest in the mortgage loans, so that such interest does not become an asset of the originator’s bankruptcy estate.”

 

(Page 1084)

Institutions have many different and overlapping reasons to securitize. Some are well placed to make (originate) loans but do not want to hold long-term credit risk on their books. By securitizing, they seek to transfer the credit risk to the investors in the securities issued by the SPV. Such institutions make money off up-front fees rather than interest payment streams. Securitization turns delayed payment streams, like periodic loan payments, into up-front cash. Securitization thus increases liquidity, which enables more lending.

 

(Page 1088)

Securitization contracts have many attributes designed to make modification costly and difficult. This part explains such attributes, and classifies them into a typology of rigidities: formal, structural, and functional. We consider the barriers to amending contracts governing mortgage pool securitization separately from the barriers to amending the underlying loan contracts. Although mortgage contracts are quite rigid in their own right, we focus on pool-level rigidities and limit the discussion of loan-level rigidities to those arising from securitization arrangements.

(Page 1088)

Barriers to amendment in securitization contracts generally respond to agency concerns. RMBS have myriads of investors in pools of thousands of mortgage loans. Transaction costs make it impractical for the investors to manage the underlying loan portfolio. Their debtor—the trust that owns the loans—is an inanimate shell that does not make much of a manager. The solution is for the investors to hire an agent, called a servicer, to administer the loan pool: to send out bills, allocate payments, dun delinquent homeowners, and foreclose on homes where the loan is in default. Delegating management to the servicer in turn creates agency risks for investors, including the risk that the servicer will renegotiate the underlying loans, reducing payments to the pool, for example, in exchange for a side payment.

 

Read the whole article at:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1323546

Quote 0 0
Bwssr
So if securitization contracts have many attributes designed to make modification costly and difficult then why do the banks even offer and sometimes grant loan mods when they know that they foreclose any way? Even if the home gets thru the trial period Loan mod they still stand a good chance of loosing the house.
Quote 0 0
Hank
Quote:
I was told by the servicer that the loan was being placed with a new investor at the time of the loan mod. I do know about the wing theory guys and avoid them.


"Placed with a new investor" does not mean or even imply a new securitization.  Non-performing loans are not commonly placed in trusts.  Newly modified loans are not commonly placed in new trusts.

What might happen is that when a loan goes into default, under certain circumstances where the loan was sold into a trust based upon false representations and warranties, the loan might be subject to repurchase by the originator.

If the loan was subject to such a required repurchase, upon modification it might be removed from the trust with reimbursement by the originator.  The originator might thereby become the owning investor OR this loan might be sold to another firm that specializes in buying discounted debt in default.

It would never be collateral in a new securitization.
Quote 0 0
stillinMyHome
So how does one prove or disprove that your loan is in a specified trust?  The SEC can't help they can only tell you on what is reported. Sure most loans probably are but knowing for sure what you are dealing would help in designing a defense would it not?
Quote 0 0
Digger
Stayinmyhome:

Why would you want to go through all the work and expense trying to PROVE a debt exists and that your loan is in some alleged trust?

Why not place the burden of proof on the bankster to prove a secured and collectible debt resides in the alleged trust. Let them scramble around trying to find something that by most accounts does not exist, while you take the rest of the day off to smile.

They are trying to steal your home - make them FIRST prove they have the legal capacity to do so. If they can't prove that, then you don't need to do anything.

Also remember, the Trust Agreements require the Note, Mortgage, Assignments, Power of Attorney, etc. be the ORIGINAL documents.
Quote 0 0
Hank
Most people lose their contested foreclosure cases because they fail to understand and heed the rules as they relate to summary judgment.  Very often, these cases can be won (or at least summary judgment can be successfully resisted) simply by making strong evidentiary arguments and supporting these arguments with one or more good defensive affidavit.  Mr. Roper has shown how to do this in numerous posts. 

But all too often, defendants think that they can win their case making some belated oral argument in court.  But since courts will not ever consider oral testimony from a summary judgment hearing or even oral argument, those sound arguments which were never committed to writing are simply waived.  Many defendants who have great defenses never get to present these defenses and lose because they didn't make thier arguments and objections in writing as required.
Quote 0 0
Hank
Quote:
So how does one prove or disprove that your loan is in a specified trust? The SEC can't help they can only tell you on what is reported. Sure most loans probably are but knowing for sure what you are dealing would help in designing a defense would it not?


Wow, Digger really nailed that point!

Unfortunately, it seems as though this participant has become intoxicated by specious arguments of swindlers and scam artists and is resolved to make these worthless arguments and give his home to the bank.

If he simply read Mr. Roper's posts and made the sound defensive arguments, he could probably at least resist summary judgment.  But this guy wants to prove something for which he has neither the proof nor the burden of proof.  This is the kind of person who ends up homeless because he spent his time tilting at windmills instead of actually filing a valid defense.

In a few weeks, we will probably hear that he was screwed by a dishonest judge.  And a loss is probably avoidable simply by filing objections and defensive responses in writing in conformance with Rule 56.
Quote 0 0
stillinMyHome
I am have tried to find if the loan is in the trust but have failed. I believe Mr. Roper once said if the bank claims a loan is a trust it usually is. I am here getting educated and have an upcoming court date in which the judge is going rule for or against summary judgement. I have a lawyer. I hoping to get it dismiss even knowing they will refile. Asking questions and making statements is how I learn from this. I know it is chaotic but it works for me. Making them prove their case makes perfect sense to me now.
 I have been reading this forum for some time and I know who the scammers are and know who I can trust giving out correct info. I have even contacted some of the members and had conversations with them.
 I am sure I will be asking questions that will make people scratch their heads but I am learning and I want to thank all of you for your help.

Quote 0 0
Texas
Hank, hate to tell you this but Digger is one of the seniors.
Quote 0 0
Hank
Quote:
Wow, Digger really nailed that point!


That was a complement to Digger, Texas!  I was mostly agreeing with what Digger said.  I am unsure what your point is, Texas.  I may not be a "senior" whatever that is, but I have read and followed many of Mr. Roper's posts.
Quote 0 0
Texas
Sorry Hank, I applied the sentence directly below your comment about Digger.

Somewhere in the very near future you will understand why I see things a little different.

A Senior would be some one that has an equivalent of a decade or plus in understanding the factors.
Quote 0 0
T-Bill
not sure if this thread was mentioned or not --- might help stillinmyhome

SECURITIZATION FRAUD QUESTIONS

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post/SECURITIZATION-FRAUD-QUESTIONS-4871269
Quote 0 0
Curious
"Many defendants who have great defenses never get to present these defenses and lose because they didn't make thier arguments and objections in writing as required."

Is there a rule or something about this?  I thought judges make their decisions in pleadings and in arguments brought forth in court.  If an appeal is sought, the record would consist of the writings and oral arguments on the record or no?
Quote 0 0
T-Bill

After a lawsuit is filed, the plaintiff (the party suing) or the defendant (the party being sued) can file a motion for summary judgment. By making a motion for summary judgment, the moving party claims that all necessary factual issues are resolved or need not be tried because they are so one-sided.

Time limitations

After the lawsuit is filed and 20 days have passed, the party seeking to recover on a claim may move for summary judgment. The party against whom a claim is asserted can move for summary judgment at any time.

Supporting Papers and Affidavits

The plaintiff and the defendant file papers (such as admissions or depositions) and affidavits (statements under oath) to support or oppose the motion for summary judgment.

Burdens of Production and Proof

The party making the summary judgment motion has the initial burden of showing the absence of a disputed material fact. If this is shown, the burden of proof shifts to the opposing party to show specific facts that present a genuine issue for trial.

Summary Judgment Standard

In deciding a summary judgment motion, the court, or judge, reviews the pleadings, any depositions, any answers to interrogatories, any admissions on file, and any affidavits. Summary judgment should be granted only when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. A material fact is a fact that could affect the outcome of the case. An issue of fact is genuine if the evidence would justify a verdict for the party opposing the summary judgment motion. All inferences drawn from the evidence presented and all ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the party who opposes the summary judgment motion.

Appealability

The court's denial of a motion for summary judgment is generally not a final order and cannot be appealed. The court's grant of summary judgment is a final decision, which can be reviewed on appeal.

Standards of Review on Appeal

The appellate court reviews the lower court's grant of summary judgment de novo, which means anew or starting over. The appellate court applies the same summary judgment standard. It decides if the evidence presents a factual dispute that should be submitted to the jury or whether the facts are one-sided in favor of one party. [end quote]

From Lawyers.com web site:
http://research.lawyers.com/Summary-Judgment-Motion.html
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...