About Deadly Clear

This blog site is for you - to make your opinions known and enable you to express your thoughts, insights, fears and be DEADLY CLEAR. The author of the blog has become more compassionate and socially enlightened with age after entering this world from a very brainwashed right-winged culture. My goal is to achieve perfection and share in Ho'oponopono which means to make things right.

Consumer Bureau Finds Homeowners Harmed by Loan Companies

Deadly Clear:

It’s about time!

Originally posted on Justice League:

The three-year-old U.S. consumer protection agency said it discovered that the largest mortgage servicers have been mishandling loan modifications and harming borrowers since new rules came into effect in January.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau supervisors have made spot checks to examine the books and practices of bank and nonbank servicers, the agency said in a report yesterday, without naming the firms. Supervisors found “substantial delays” in modifying loans that resulted in “negative consequences,” such as higher mortgage payments and unjustified blemishes on borrowers’ credit reports, the report said.

“All borrowers should be treated fairly by loan servicers, and through our supervision program, we intend to hold them accountable,” Richard Cordray, the CFPB director, said in a statement.

Read on.

View original

Identity Theft By the Banks: A New Cause of Action?

Deadly Clear:

The scheme was patented. This was “seamless automation” and a simultaneous loan procurement to securities exchange scheme. See also: http://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/behind-the-securitization-curtain-21st-century-mortgage-casino/

Originally posted on Livinglies's Weblog:

For further information, assistance, consultation, expert analysis, or litigation support please call 954-495-9867 or 520 405-1688.

——————————————–

The inevitable conclusion, in my opinion, is that where the investment banks have set up a structure where the real lender is deprived of the evidence (i.e., the promissory note) of the loan (which they didn’t want) and the borrower is deprived of information and good faith in a table funded loan with multiple layers of conduits, is that the identity of both the investors and the borrowers is being systematically stolen, misused and causing losses and financial damage to both sets of victims. That is precisely what TILA and Reg Z are aiming at when they describe such loans as “predatory per se.” Isn’t that unclean hands per se?
The usual charges of identity theft are against individuals who poach identities and then use it get credit, cash or goods and services…

View original 811 more words

Holder Says Bankers May Yet Face Prosecution for 2008

Deadly Clear:

Now that he is gone…easy to say… Like the say in Missouri – “show me.”

Originally posted on Justice League:

Bankers may yet face federal prosecution for their roles in the 2008 financial crisis, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

“We have ongoing investigations that may perhaps produce individual prosecutions,” Holder said, defending the Justice Department’s handling of probes that have resulted in large financial settlements but few criminal prosecutions.

Holder announced his retirement last month, saying he would remain in the job until a new attorney general is nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate. He said he expects that process to take until the beginning of next year.

“My hope would be the Senate would take up that nomination the same way that mine was and, by early February, we have a new attorney general,” he said.

read on.

View original

THE ROBINSON’S STRIKE BACK AT MERSCORP, MERS … LANHAM ACT VIOLATIONS!!!

Deadly Clear:

Dave hits another home run!

Originally posted on Clouded Titles Blog:

LOS ANGELES — In a timely counterpunch, the Robinson’s new counsel has launched a 21-count Complaint against MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. and MERS, accusing it of concealing its trademark name from Daniel and Darla Robinson in violation of the Lanham Act.   The “Act” is supposed to allow consumers to buy products and services in confidence, but the way this author sees it … how can you buy from someone you don’t know is present at the closing table?   You can read the Complaint (with attached exhibits) in .pdf format below.  It was filed Friday, October 24, 2014 and we are awaiting on the case number.  If I get it before you do, I’ll post it so you can track the case! 

Complaint-Final 10-24-14  

The Robinsons finally decided they’d had enough of their former federal counsel Susan Murphy, who was relieved of her duties and replaced with Long Beach trial…

View original 145 more words

Mortgage Modifications: Senior Loans May Become Not So Senior

Deadly Clear:

Looks like there was a decent judge in this case…

Originally posted on Bankruptcy-RealEstate-Insights:

Sperry Assoc. Fed. Credit Union v. US Bank Nat’l Ass’n (In re White), 514 B.R. 365 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2014)

A junior mortgagee sought to subordinate the senior mortgage loan based on an argument that modification of the senior loan impaired the junior mortgagee’s rights.

View original 885 more words

Foreclosure Links

Deadly Clear:

Homeowner wins judgment against BANA based on fact America’s Wholesale Lender was never a legal entity at the time the mortgage and notes were executed. Court rules that Homeowner can recover all payments, with interest, and attorney’s fees.
See paragraph 9
(b) The Note and Mortgage are void because the alleged Lender, America’s Wholesale Lender, stated to be a New York Corporation, was not in fact incorporated in the year 2005 or subsequently, at any time, by either Countrywide Home Loans, or Bank of America, or any of their related corporate entities or agents.
(d) America’s Wholesale Lender, stated to be a New York Corporation, did not have authority to do business in Florida under Florida Statute 607.1506 and the alleged mortgage loan is therefore invalid and void.
(e) Plaintiff and its predecessors in interest had no right to receive payment on the mortgage loan because the loan was invalid and therefore void because the corporate mortgagee named therein, was non-existent, and no valid mortgage loan was ever held by Plaintiff or its predecessors in interest.
11. Defendant is therefore entitled to recover from Plaintiff, all funds reflected on Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 which Plaintiff’s witnesses testified reflected the payment history of monies paid by Defendant to Plaintiff or its predecessors in interest, because the subject note and mortgage were invalid because the alleged lender did not exist and did not have the legal right to receive and retain or disburse said funds.
12. Defendant is also entitled to recover from Plaintiff, all costs and attorney’s fees … Thanks, Steve!

Originally posted on Findsen Law:

Evidence Suggests MERS Was Conceived in a “Fraud Friendly” Way

Bank of America’s Assignment and Blank Endorsement Were Insufficient to Transfer Ownership Interest

2014-10-16 – Nash – Final Judgment

Bank of America, N.A. Successor by Merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Nash, Case No. 49-2011-CA-004389, In the Circuit Court of the 18th Judicial Circuit, Seminole County, Florida

The Court finds that:

The Court finds that:

a.) America’s Wholesale Lender, a New York Corporation, the “Lender”,

Specifically named in the mortgage, did not file this action, did not appear at

Trial, and did not Assign any of the interest in the mortgage. ·

b.) The Note and Mortgage are void because the alleged Lender, America’s

Wholesale Lender, stated to be a New York Corporation, was not in fact

incorporated in the year 2005 or subsequently, at any time, by either

Countrywide Home…

View original 518 more words

Mortgage-Backed Securities: “It Is The Rare Ordinary Human Being Who Understands Them”

Deadly Clear:

Does 11 USC § 548(e) have any effect when loans were not timely assigned to the securitized trusts (by the closing dates), clouding the title for the homeowners, depriving investors of standing and/or in some states a loss of proprietary land record placement; and/or when loans were sold multiple times (FCIC, pg. 407)?

Originally posted on Bankruptcy-RealEstate-Insights:

In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., 513 B.R. 624 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014)

A purchaser of residential mortgage-backed securities filed proofs of claim based on alleged misrepresentations by the debtors in offering materials distributed in connection with sale of the securities. The debtors objected and sought to subordinate the claims as claims arising from securities “of” the debtors.

View original 1,091 more words

Two years later Ocwen still trying to sell company’s chairman’s Atlanta home

Deadly Clear:

What? No extradition from St. Croix?

Originally posted on Justice League:

hahamouse

Two years ago, part of mortgage servicerOcwen Financial Corp. relocated to St. Croix and the company’s chairman, William C. Erbey, wanted to move there, too. The company bought Erbey’s Atlanta home for $6.4 million and put it on the market in September 2012. The house is still for sale and stockholders are paying the price, reports The Wall Street Journal.

By many measures, the company paid too much for the house at 4701 Northside Drive, reports WSJ Moneybeat. Erbey bought the six-bedroom, 12-bathroom, 14,387-square-foot home in 2006 for $4.385 million. He sold it to the company at a 47.7 percent increase, although the median value of top-tier homes in the area had dropped 11.2 percent, the WSJ adds.

Read on.

View original

Cashmere v. State of Washington Dept of Revenue: Recent REMIC case in Washington

Deadly Clear:

They didn’t even assign the financial assets – makes sense to me. Hopefully, Judges are starting to see the light.

Originally posted on Justice League:

This is a Sept 25, 2014, Washington State supreme court ruling on REMIC taxes not exempt because Cashmere did not receive any interest in mortgages or deeds of trust to back its investment.

Cashmere v. Dept of Revenue (PDF)

Michael Gamsky testified that REMIC investments are not secured transactions because issuers do not pledge any property as security for the investments. He explained that investors who purchase REMIC certificates are beneficiaries of a trust and they have contractual rights under the pooling and servicing agreement, but they are not secured investors.

After reviewing the evidence, the superior court granted summary judgment to DOR. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Cashmere’s investments were not primarily secured by first mortgages or deeds of trust because Cashmere had no power to institute foreclosure proceedings. Cashmere Valley Bank, 175 Wn. App. at 418. Thus, the bank’s investments were not secured and the deduction…

View original 46 more words