Source: Capitalism is Not Failing
LivingLies: “The court disagreed with the bank, determining that while the mortgage modification application was filed pursuant to HAMP, the plaintiffs “do not seek to enforce HAMP.” Instead, the plaintiffs argue that the wrongful denial of their application and failure to disclose the calculation error for three years “constitutes unfair or deceptive conduct in violation of the [WCPA].””
LivingLies: “Since 2000, more than 20 million people have been wrongfully displaced from their homes by parties invoking foreclosure laws, millions more lost jobs, and millions more suffered loss of economic opportunity, status and income as investment banks now masquerading as commercial banks continue to rake in huge amounts of revenue — sharing none of it with the investors who put up all the money or the borrowers who put up then lives, their signature, their credit reputation and their homes.”
DC Editor: 20 million is a very low figure considering over 100 million homes (2.5 persons per HH) have clouded titles. Just because they don’t know it yet – it is still problematic
LivingLies: “While it is still a reasonable bet that the investment banks will continue to control the political and judicial narrative, there are many signs that “securitization fail” (see Adam Levitin) is being revealed in the courts. As the number of foreclosures decreases, the increased opportunity for judges to truly consider the scheme in front of them is leading to a rise in judgments for homeowners and a revelation that the “REMIC Trust” is a label without meaning or existence in the real world.”
LivingLies: “The use of “attorney in fact” is merely a ruse in order to bridge gaps in the facial validity of documents being used in foreclosure. It also is used to create the illusion that the grantor owned the asset over which the power of attorney was granted. In plain language it is simply a paper trail to cover up the fact that there is no money trail. People often forget that these cases are supposed to be about money.
And don’t forget that the entire purpose of using the names of large banks is to give a judge the impression that certain large banks are involved in the loan when in fact they are not.”
This begs the question: “Are the judges just stupid or corrupt? Or both?”
Source: Bank Games: “Attorney in Fact”
LivingLies: “The simple answer is that the investors were the only ones who paid value but they never got title to the debt, note, or mortgage. This created a vacuum in which the investment bank pretended to own the debt and then act through surrogates to claim foreclosure without turning over the proceeds of foreclosure to the investors. It was a plain fraudulent revenue scheme.
The Florida legislature [and several other states] has now made it far easier for the banks to continue making money on actions that are simply labelled as foreclosures. This act enables the foreclosure mills and document fabricators to not only speed up the notarization process but also create a gap in accountability for errors, omissions and fraudulent content. It’s all happening online.”
Thank you Neil!
Living Lies: “The normal loan agreement is based upon certain accepted and presumed elements. The borrower desires to borrow money, he/she gets a loan of money and signs documents in favor of the lender setting forth the terms of repayment. The lender, who is responsible under TILA for the viability of the loan, makes the loan with…
Since the law of contract starts with the intent of the parties it may fairly be said that there was no meeting of the minds because the true nature of the loan transaction was illegally concealed from the consumer/borrower. It is obvious that the borrower was directly intending to enter into one contract while the investment bank, acting indirectly through conduits was entering into another contract that entirely altered the scheme of interest, principal and cash flow.”
How Do Court Reporters Keep Straight Faces? These are from a book called Disorder in the Courts and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and published by court reporters that had the torment of staying calm while the exchanges were taking place.
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
Source: A little humor is a good thing
LivingLies: “While the banks never allege that they are a holder in due course because they know that the plaintiff has never paid for the debt, they often seek treatment as though they were a holder in due course and many courts do exactly that.
* By focusing on the promissory note, you are focusing the Court’s attention on Article 3 of The Uniform Commercial Code instead of Article 9. Under Article 3 there are numerous instances in which a promissory note can be negotiated. sold and enforced by parties who do not own the debt. In such instances it is generally presumed that the possession of the promissory note was delivered along with rights to enforce it on behalf of the owner of the debt. It is in effect treated as though it were the title to the debt. This is the law and it is not subject to philosophical discussion as to whether or not it should be the law.”
LivingLies: “Investment bankers may not be going to jail but they are about to be taken to the cleaners for creating illegal securitization schemes that were directly intended to violate basic laws and doctrines that have existed for centuries. And this time the appetite is there to prosecute such claims.”