Archive | mortgage meltdown RSS feed for this section

The Kramer opposition to the Attorney General order to show cause

30 Aug

A good read

Opposition of Defendant (AG)

MABRY tip no injunction needed to stop foreclosure TERRY MABRY et al., opinion 2923.5 Cilvil code

12 Jun

The court in Mabry

Fannie Mae Policy Now Admits Loan Not Secured

2 Jun

Posted 14 hours ago by Neil Garfield on Livinglies’s Weblog


Editor’s Note: Their intention was to get MERS and servicers out of the foreclosure business. They now say that prior to foreclosure MERS must assign to the real party in interest.

Here’s their problem: As numerous Judges have pointed out, MERS specifically disclaims any interest in the obligation, note or mortgage. Even the language of the mortgage or Deed of Trust says MERS is mentioned in name only and that the Lender is somebody else.

These Judges who have considered the issue have come up with one conclusion, an assignment from a party with no right, title or interest has nothing to assign. The assignment may look good on its face but there still is the problem that nothing was assigned.

Here’s the other problem. If MERS was there in name only to permit transfers and other transactions off-record (contrary to state law) and if the original party named as “Lender” is no longer around, then what you have is a gap in the chain of custody and chain of title with respect to the creditor’s side of the loan. It is all off record which means, ipso facto that it is a question of fact as to whose loan it is. That means, ipso facto, that the presence of MERS makes it a judicial question which means that the non-judicial election is not available. They can’t do it.

So when you put this all together, you end up with the following inescapable conclusions:

* The naming of MERS as mortgagee in a mortgage deed or as beneficiary in a deed of trust is a nullity.
* MERS has no right, title or interest in any loan and even if it did, it disclaims any such interest on its own website.
* The lender might be the REAL beneficiary, but that is a question of fact so the non-judicial foreclosure option is not available.
* If the lender was not the creditor, it isn’t the lender because it had no right title or interest either, legally or equitably.
* Without a creditor named in the security instrument intended to secure the obligation, the security was never perfected.
* Without a creditor named in the security instrument intended to secure the obligation, the obligation is unsecured as to legal title.
* Since the only real creditor is the one who advanced the funds (the investor(s)), they can enforce the obligation by proxy or directly. Whether the note is actually evidence of the obligation and to what extent the terms of the note are enforceable is a question for the court to determine.
* The creditor only has a claim if they would suffer loss as a result of the indirect transaction with the borrower. If they or their agents have received payments from any source, those payments must be allocated to the loan account. The extent and measure of said allocation is a question of fact to be determined by the Court.
* Once established, the allocation will most likely be applied in the manner set forth in the note, to wit: (a) against payments due (b) against fees and (c) against principal, in that order.
* Once applied against payments, due the default vanishes unless the allocation is less than the amount due in payments.
* Once established, the allocation results in a fatal defect in the notice of default, the statements sent to the borrower, and the representations made in court. Thus at the very least they must vacate all foreclosure proceedings and start over again.
* If the allocation is less than the amount of payments due, then the investor(s) collectively have a claim for acceleration and to enforce the note — but they have no claim on the mortgage deed or deed of trust. By intentionally NOT naming parties who were known at the time of the transaction the security was split from the obligation. The obligation became unsecured.
* The investors MIGHT have a claim for equitable lien based upon the circumstances that BOTH the borrower and the investor were the victims of fraud.

No Default The Servicer is making the payments !!!

30 Apr

In the sercuritization game there are many co-obligors and you may not be in default after all. In the pooling agreement the servicer must agree to advance payment in the event of a missed payment by debtor.

Who is the obligor? Is there a default? Remember – this is financial engineering at its best. This is the American way to be creative and inventful. These guys are so good that homeowners can stop paying their loan and the creditors get paid anyway. They just forgot to tell the homeowners – and the courts. Some people call this forgetfulness fraud upon the court.

When they added the loans into the pool they attached numerous conditions to them. What might some of those conditions be? One of them is a condition for the servicer (making them an obligor). If the servicer doesn’t receive the homeowners payment, they MUST advance the payment (principal and interest) to keep the flow of revenue to the creditors (read this in the SEC filings). Don’t believe me? Think it can’t be proven? Read on …

The following is in regards to the IndyMac INDX 2005-AR7 trust …

Let’s look at the April 2010 loan level files. Look at the these specific fields (for loan #120600243):

523275.38 939.51 0 0 522335.87 939.51 2956.3 0.04625 2016.79 0.00375 163.52 0.0425 1853.27 0.000055 2.4 0 0 165.92 0.0424451 1850.87

Now look at the March 2010 loan level files. Look at these same specific fields (again for loan #120600243).

524211.28 935.9 0 0 523275.38 935.9 2956.3 0.04625 2020.4 0.00375 163.82 0.0425 1856.58 0.000055 2.4 0 0 166.22 0.042445 1854.18

(Note the ending balance for March 2010 is 523275.38 – how come the balance is going DOWN?). On the March 2010 loan level files the servicer is also reporting the account is 90+ days delinquent. The homeowner is not and has not been making payments.

Beginning balance is 523,275.38 and ending balance is 522,335.87!!!

Scheduled Principal is 939.51 and the total principal is 939.51

523,275.38 – 939.51 = 522,335.87 (they show the principle has been reduced!)

Scheduled payment is 2956.30

Scheduled Interest is 2016.79 and net interest is 1853.27

939.51 + 2016.79 = 2956.30 (the scheduled payment)

Servicing fee = 163.52

2016.79 – 163.52 = 1853.27 (net interest)

Total PTR Interest is 1850.87 (Trustee fee is 2.40 so 1850.87 + 2.40 = 1853.27 which is the net interest)

The reason they have to ADVANCE the fees is because the fees are still paid and (apparently) come out of the interest portion of the payment.

This homeowner “might” owe the money to somebody, but not the creditor as the creditor has received the payment in full. Remember – this is a STATEMENT to the investors describing what they were PAID. The party foreclosing is not entitled to power of sale as they are not the creditor. The creditor has received all payments and the homeowner has not defaulted.

The method used seems to be inconsistent between deals. I checked for another homeowner in another IndyMac Trust (IndyMac RAST 2007-A5) and the homeowner had interest only payments (so the principal didn’t go down) however, the interest looks like it is being paid. For other homeowners in this deal they are using the “curtailment” field and the ending principal balance is RISING.

This is just the statement to the certifiateholders. You can BET the sub-servicer and the master servicer are keeping full accounting records that they are NOT reporting to the homeowner, the investors or the courts.

Double dipping They foreclose, Get Insurance, Get Tarp, Get yeild prem, Bailout our tax money then they evict…

3 Apr

See this motion for discovery it shows all the sources of recovery for the lenders it also shows the trustees take the money and don’t even allocate to the investors but keep it


Latest on MERS and "possession of the Note"

3 Apr

There is a great case re MERS’ authority to operate in CA since it is NOT registered to do business. The case is Champlaie. It
states that MERS is not a foreign lending institution, nor is it creating evidences.

The case is also interesting since it discusses why those who foreclose do not have to be in possession of the promissory note.Here are three paragraphs below from the court, although they are taken from different pages.
It is not helpful for us but the court does question why those who foreclose do not have to be in possession of the note.

“Several courts have held that this language demonstrates that possession of the note is not required, apparently concluding that the statute authorizes initiation of foreclosure by parties who would not be expected to possess the
note. See, e.g., Spencer v. DHI Mortg. Co., No. 09-0925, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55191, *23-*24, 2009 WL 1930161 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2009) (O’Neill, J.).
However, the precise reasoning of these cases is unclear.FN14”

“To say that a trustee’s duties are strictly limited does not appear to this court to preclude possession of the note as a prerequisite to foreclosure. On the other hand, perhaps it is not unreasonable to suggest that such a prerequisite imposes a nonstatutory duty.”

“At some point, however, the opinion of a large number of decisions, while not in a sense binding, are by virtue of the sheer number, determinative. I cannot conclude that the result reached by the district courts is unreasonable or does not accord with the law. I further note that this conclusion is not obviously at odds with the policies underlying the California statutes. The apparent purpose
of requiring possession of a negotiable instrument is to avoid fraud. In the context of non-judicial foreclosures, however, the danger of fraud is minimized by the requirement that the deed of trust be recorded, as must be any assignment or substitution of the parties thereto. While it may be that requiring production of the note would have done something to limit the mischief that led to the economic pain the nation has suffered, the great weight of authority has reasonably concluded that California law does not impose this requirement.”

Latest ruling on Civil Code 2923.5

26 Feb

B. Perata Mortgage Relief Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5

Plaintiffs’ second cause of action arises under the Perata Mortgage Relief Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5. Plaintiffs argue U.S. Bank is liable for monetary damages under this provision because it “failed and refused to explore” “alternatives to the drastic remedy of foreclosure, such as loan modifications” before initiating foreclosure proceedings. (FAC PP 17-18.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege U.S. Bank violated Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5(c) by failing to include with the notice of sale a declaration that it contacted the borrower to explore such options. (Opp’n at 6.)

Section 2923.5(a)(2) requires a “mortgagee, beneficiary or authorized agent” to “contact the borrower in person or by telephone in order to assess the borrower’s [*1166] financial situation and explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure.” For a lender which had recorded a notice of default prior to the effective date of the statute, as is the case here, § 2923.5(c) imposes a duty to attempt to negotiate with a borrower before recording a notice of sale. These provisions cover loans initiated between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2007. Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5(h)(3), (i).

U.S. Bank’s primary argument is that Plaintiffs’ claim should be dismissed because neither § 2923.5 nor its legislative history clearly indicate an intent to create a private right of action. (Mot. at 8.) Plaintiffs counter that such a conclusion is unsupported by the legislative history; the California legislature would not have enacted this “urgency” legislation, intended to curb high foreclosure rates in the state, without any accompanying enforcement mechanism. (Opp’n at 5.) The court agrees with Plaintiffs. While the Ninth Circuit has yet to address this issue, the court found no decision from this circuit [**15] where a § 2923.5 claim had been dismissed on the basis advanced by U.S. Bank. See, e.g. Gentsch v. Ownit Mortgage Solutions Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45163, 2009 WL 1390843, at *6 (E.D. Cal., May 14, 2009)(addressing merits of claim); Lee v. First Franklin Fin. Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44461, 2009 WL 1371740, at *1 (E.D. Cal., May 15, 2009) (addressing evidentiary support for claim).

On the other hand, the statute does not require a lender to actually modify a defaulting borrower’s loan but rather requires only contacts or attempted contacts in a good faith effort to prevent foreclosure. Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5(a)(2). Plaintiffs allege only that U.S. Bank “failed and refused to explore such alternatives” but do not allege whether they were contacted or not. (FAC P 18.) Plaintiffs’ use of the phrase “refused to explore,” combined with the “Declaration of Compliance” accompanying the Notice of Trustee’s Sale, imply Plaintiffs were contacted as required by the statute. (Doc. No. 7-2, Exh. 4 at 3.) Because Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5, U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiffs’ claim is dismissed without prejudice.