SECURITIZED DISTRUST – PART TWO

“The abuses and dishonesty and multiple breaches of contract within the shadow banking world of securitized trusts appear to have been endless, now with new revelations regarding the rigging of Libor rates, as well as constituting a litigation puzzle for borrowers and for their attorneys seeking to use those abuses and dishonesty to their advantage. But how?”

SECURITIZED DISTRUST PART TWO provides another outstanding synopsis of the banking foreclosure fraud and little known hidden secrets used by lenders to defraud the borrowers and the courts.

SECURITIZED DISTRUST – PART TWO
By Gary Victor Dubin

“In the March 15, 2012 Issue of Deadly Clear, I summarized what for many were little known aspects and abuses of what has been going on behind the scenes, often unlawfully, in securitized trusts, where individual mortgage loans have been and still are being bundled together in the thousands, often undisclosed to borrowers or even to courts contrary to sworn disclosures in court papers made cavalierly under penalty of perjury to the contrary, and ownership certificates therein sold by Wall Street to investors like stocks, called mortgage backed securities.

Since then, borrowers and their attorneys throughout the Nation have been increasingly trying to find which securitized trust their mortgage loans may be in, no easy task, and to expose and use such associated abuses to defend against foreclosures.

Some have found, for instance, that their foreclosing mortgagees never owned their mortgage loans which were instead found trading in securitized trusts or even unlawfully were found placed simultaneously in more than one securitized trust, or that their mortgage loans were paid off by investor certificates and losses being reimbursed by insurance companies with TARP funds.

The problem for borrowers and for their attorneys has been how to use that information and frequently violations of federal and/or state law either affirmatively or as a defense to foreclosure.

Unfortunately, few state courts and almost no federal courts have, at least at first, responded positively to securitization issues, still seemingly content to ask only principally the question whether the loan has been paid current or if it is in default, as if it does not matter who actually owns the mortgage loan.

The reluctance or intellectual inability of the judiciary generally to comprehend the importance of penetrating the inter-workings and machinations of securitized trusts has been historically largely understandable, stemming principally from a traditional mindset that views mortgage loans as they were in an era of American banking that no longer exists.

Historically, when banks made mortgage loans, the borrowers were handed money upon signing promissory notes and upon signing mortgages as security instruments, and the banks put the promissory notes in their vaults and recorded the mortgages, and once fully paid returned the promissory notes to the borrowers and recorded a release of the mortgages.

However, in the new Millennium for most lenders that procedure changed. Promissory notes and mortgages rapidly became securitized by Wall Street, and in effect unknown to borrowers, converted into continuously traded securities.

As a result, the traditional state-based methods of tracking and regulating mortgage ownership through local recording offices and local agency regulators were bypassed, principally through use of the lender-created and lender-owned Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., known commonly as MERS, which lead to the numerous abuses summarized in the original SECURITIZED DISTRUST article that appeared in Deadly Clear in March of this year.

Largely unregulated, promissory notes (the originals of which contrary to UCC negotiable instruments laws appear initially reportedly to have mostly been shredded and digitized by securitized trusts for their alleged convenience) and related mortgages appear to have frequently not been placed in their assigned securitized trusts at all, defrauding investors, although said to have been and to be in securitized trusts, instead frequently used as collateral, for instance, for Federal Home Loan Bank loans or placed in additional securitized trusts, all akin intentionally to a Ponzi scheme.

It appears that many investors in securitized trusts have been paid back their investments in whole or in part with insurance dollars, tempting loan servicers to falsely claim in court that they own the mortgage loan so that they can run off with the foreclosed property or the proceeds of a foreclosure sale without ever owning the mortgage or paying anything for it.

It also appears that many borrowers seeking with federal promises loan modifications have been strung along, sometimes for years, never being told that most securitized trusts cannot modify loans without investor approval, no matter whether, for instance, formally HAMP loan modification guidelines are met.

The abuses and dishonesty and multiple breaches of contract within the shadow banking world of securitized trusts appear to have been endless, now with new revelations regarding the rigging of Libor rates, as well as constituting a litigation puzzle for borrowers and for their attorneys seeking to use those abuses and dishonesty to their advantage. But how?

It is not usually sufficient, as many have with great disappointment learned at first, although it really should be successful in a perfect legal system, to argue in court, for instance, that insurance paid off the securitized investors, that your promissory note and mortgage were not in the trust at the securitized cut-off date, that the mortgage assignment to the securitized trust was robo-signed, that you are a third-party beneficiary of the securitized trust, that the REMIC tax laws were violated, and/or so on. Why not?

Presently, courts — whose competence is unfortunately only slowly evolving in this area of the law and only at present in a few parts of the Country — are beginning nevertheless to show some signs of catching on to the significance of securitized trust issues in foreclosure contexts, but nevertheless seem to only grudgingly grant borrowers relief where borrowers plead and can successfully outmaneuver the barbed wire of motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment, and show actual prejudice as a result. This can usually with perseverance be shown, however, in several possible ways.

First, the simplest way to show prejudice is to challenge the standing of your foreclosing mortgagee if you can show the court that your mortgage loan is instead in a securitized trust and your foreclosing mortgagee is not the securitized trustee, as having no right to your monthly payments, and perhaps owing you an accounting and back the money already paid by you unless it can establish it went to the trust.

Second, another way is to show prejudice if you were denied a loan modification by claiming that the foreclosing mortgagee had no authority under the securitized trust to decide on a loan modification, yet strung you along and/or did not reasonably review your loan modification application under applicable federal guidelines in good faith.

Third, another way is to allege that the required conditions precedent of notices of default, right to cure, and acceleration were not given by the holder of your promissory note and mortgage or its actual representative while your loan was in a securitized trust.

Fourth, if false pleading allegations and especially if false affidavits/declarations were submitted to the court as to the ownership of your mortgage loan, you should seek an order to show cause why your foreclosing mortgagee should not be held in contempt of court (and many States including Hawaii, New York, and New Jersey now hold the attorneys representing foreclosing mortgagees also liable and subject to disciplinary proceedings for such false submissions), or file a separate independent lawsuit for fraud on the court, again stressing how you have been injured incurring, for instance, attorneys’ fees and costs.

Fifth, borrowers can also allege and prove prejudice if they paid a mortgage insurance premium, as many borrowers do, as a part of their loan agreement and monthly mortgage payment obligation, to the extent that it can be argued and in discovery it can be shown either that a mortgage insurance company made payments to the trust or to investors on their loan if they did not, or that their foreclosing mortgage damaged them by failing to submit an insurance claim, while alleging that they were parties to that mortgage insurance policy, indeed, the payor, if not a direct third-party beneficiary. This has remained a largely low visibility and almost entirely ignored area of foreclosure defense.

The above is not to suggest that borrowers and attorneys should not continue to also attack the securitized trusts head on, for example arguing that the trust laws of Delaware and New York, for instance, render acts of trustees void if property is treated by the trustee in violation of the language of the trust instrument which in the case of securitized trusts is usually called its Pooling and Servicing Agreement, and/or that various mortgage assignments in its shadow banking world occurred while MERS was assigning a mortgage on behalf of an entity in bankruptcy proceedings and without the permission of the bankruptcy court and/or while not having listed the mortgage as an asset of the bankruptcy estate, amounting to bankruptcy fraud.

Finding whether a loan is in one securitized trust or even unlawfully in more than one securitized trust is, however, not an easy task.

Only a few law firms including mine and a few forensic advisors nationwide have found a reliable way to do that tricky research, and even then it appears that securitized trusts are understandably working around the clock to block such access at the present time.

This new research tool, although proving extremely valuable for an increasing number of borrowers, will no doubt be met with continued resistance by courts that, although becoming more and more educated on securitized trust abuses and the shadow banking system that securitized trusts and MERS have created, can be expected to nevertheless be, as usual, slow to provide relief as millions of borrowers in the meantime will continue unjustly to be evicted from their homes.

There are positive indications that finally state legislatures and local municipalities will more rapidly be coming to the rescue of abused borrowers very shortly, a new and expected development in the war against abusive securitized trusts to be highlighted in a subsequent article in Dearly Clear.

Meanwhile, every borrower should immediately attempt to learn if his or her mortgage loan was or is trading in one or more securitized trusts as the first step in preparing a foreclosure defense or seeking damages thereafter for wrongful foreclosure — even if already foreclosed on either judicially or nonjudically, and even if his or her property has already been sold.”

DUBIN LAW OFFICES
Suite 3100, Harbor Court
55 Merchant Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Office: (808) 537-2300
Facsimile: (808) 523-7733
Email: gdubin@dubinlaw.net

___________________________________________________________________

Research is expensive – however, it is the key in many cases as it uncovers layers of fraud committed by the servicers, the lenders, the trustees and a host of other affiliates including “MERS.”

What a joke MERS really is! Supposedly, through MERS the homeowners and investors are able to know precisely what is going on and where their loan is at any given time…What a crock of nonsense that is!

Take the Pascual family for example.  Aurora decided to foreclose in October 2009 after, of course, the modification dance… first the forced default in order to get HAMP help, then the repetitive submission of paperwork, phone calls, more paperwork, more phone calls and eventually, the denial…

Only Aurora failed to tell the Pascuals and the Court, Judge Seabright, (or anyone for that matter) that the Pascual loan was (and is) actively trading in the LEHMAN XS TRUST Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-5H.  The Trust did not foreclose – and apparently had no damage to foreclose because the Trust tranche where the Pascual loan allegedly landed had no losses in 2009 – everything was paid.

It appears Aurora did not buy the loan out of the Trust because it is still actively trading and Aurora is only the “servicer” …Ownership actually belongs to the Trust investors.

And there was no paperwork that accompanied the foreclosure notices or eviction complaint that would establish Aurora as anything more than a servicer…

But it gets even better – there is NO assignment of mortgage to the Trust to be found…Aurora, the Master Servicer failed to file an assignment to the Trust in the Hawaii public recordation; however, they filed an assignment from MERS to themselves… oh, what a wicked web we weave, when first we practice to deceive…

When challenged with the truth that the Pascual loan was noted in the LEHMAN XS TRUST  Aurora failed miserably. As stated in the recent Pascual Reply brief composed by Frederick Arensmeyer of the Dubin Law Offices:

“Rather than making any attempt to rebut this newly discovered evidence (which it clearly cannot do), Defendant Aurora in its opposition — in complete disregard of its prior fraudulent misrepresentation to this court that it in fact was the holder of the note — merely argues that Plaintiffs could have previously presented this evidence in their memorandum in opposition or at the hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant Aurora is mistaken, and its failure to offer any rebuttal is itself grounds for granting Plaintiffs’ instant motion.1 (citing in foonote 1):

  1. Cf. Naranjo v. SBMC Mortg., 2012 WL 3030370, *3 (S.D. Cal., July 24,2012) (“The vital allegation in this case is the assignment of the loan into the WAMU Trust was not completed by May 30, 2006 as required by the Trust Agreement. This allegation gives rise to a plausible inference that the subsequent assignment, substitution, and notice of default and election to sell may also be improper. Defendants wholly fail to address that issue. . .. This reason alone is sufficient to deny Defendants’ motion with respect to this issue.” (Emphasis added)).”

How does the average homeowner or their attorney find this information.  As Mr. Arensmeyer continues in the reply brief:  “Plaintiffs contracted with a finance expert to conduct a very specialized investigation utilizing an advanced computer system regularly relied upon by professionals in the finance and investment industries.

Furthermore, this newly discovered evidence is not of the type that is readily available to borrowers, the public, or even most attorneys, and Plaintiffs cannot reasonably have been expected to present such evidence before the prior hearing.”

Aurora never expected that anyone would research the loans on Bloomberg Terminal. It appears, Aurora (and their attorneys), obviously think of the judges, homeowners and foreclosure defense lawyers as complete buffoons. This thought process enables them to think they can get away with fraud. Hopefully, Judge Seabright will throw the book at them – sua sponte!

page divider

Whether or not you are represented by an attorney understanding the legal system is an asset.  The more you learn, the less likely you are to be taken advantage of or scammed.  Knowledge is power!

 

15 thoughts on “SECURITIZED DISTRUST – PART TWO

  1. This article is wonderful. Very insightful and pretty much what I have been saying since 2010 . In fact there is a case that i wrote the brief for a woman prose in Kings County New York where the end result was that the foreclosure judgment was vacated pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)2 and CPLR 5015(a)3 after the sale to defunct Fremont Investment and loan as result of them as plaintiff hiding who actually owned the note. Please Google Fremont vs Davilar.

    The funny thing is that I did not have a Bloomberg terminal to uncover said evidence. In fact I used a little known federal law that requires a servicer if ask in writing pursuant to 15 USC 1641(f)2 and or 15 USC 1641(g)1 to reveal who is the actual owner of the mortgage as defined by the Federal Reserve. Litton the loan servicer at the time, spilled the beans and provided information that HSBC as Trustee was the real owner. Add this to the fact that I showed a pattern in other cases of them trying to do such a thing by misrepresenting that Fremont Investment and Loan was the owner of the loan during the action and the servicer ended up sending the borrower a 1099C to cancel said debt. I had a matter with Aurora Loan Services where they did the same thing and got a foreclosure judgment vacated and dismissed. I sent Aurora Loan Services the letter pursuant to 15 USC 1641(f)2 asking who owned the mortgage and note and there corporate lawyers Mcginnis ,Tessitore Wutchester LLP came back with LEHMAN XS TRUST Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-15 as owner. The foreclosure was dismissed for failure to meet a condition precedent pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)7

    • Great Article – Reat Reply!
      Aurora Loan Services LLC – then Aurora BAnk FSB sold the service to a different company now out of Texas.
      Could you please send me your “sample letter” in order to request in writing “pursuant to 15 USC 1641 (f)2 and or 15 USC 1641 (g)1 to reveal who the actual owner of the mortage is as defined by the Federal Reserve.
      That would be tramendously helpful for my foreclosure situation.
      Thank you so very much!

      • Please e-mail copy of letter, 15 usc 1641(f)2 asking who owns the mortgage and the note Thanks BH

      • Please email me the “sample letter” , 15 usc 1641(f)2 asking who owns the mortgage and the note thanks for me> Eloise

      • Sorry this blog never notified me that it had replies. please email me at smartenupconsulting@gmail.com or copy the following posted here

        John Doe
        100 Fulton Avenue
        Hempstead, NY 11550

        IndyMac Mortgage Services
        P.O. Box 4045
        Kalamazoo, MI 49003-4045
        CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT#
        Re: Loan No: 12345676
        To Whom It May Concern:

        This is a “qualified written request” under Section 6 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).
        I understand that under Section 6 of RESPA and the Frank Dodd Act you are required to acknowledge my request within 5 business days and must try to resolve the issue within 20 business days.
        This is also a notice sent pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692e Sec. 807 in regards to any additional information regarding your authority to collect this debt on behalf of the alleged creditor. I specially cite subsection (10) from the statue which states that the use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer is a violation of this section.
        This is NOT a request for “verification” or proof of my mailing address, but a request for VALIDATION and your authority to negotiate and collect on behalf of the principal pursuant to the above named Title and Section, 5-701 and 5-702 of NY General Obligations Law

        I respectfully request that your office provide me with competent evidence that you have legal authority to negotiate this debt on behalf of the name creditor with proof of agency status and that said creditor is the owner and holder of said instrument pursuant to 15 USC 1641(f)2.
        15 USC 1641(f)2 states “Servicer not treated as owner on basis of assignment for administrative convenience.

        A servicer of a consumer obligation arising from a consumer credit transaction shall not be treated as the owner of the obligation for purposes of this section on the basis of an assignment of the obligation from the creditor or another assignee to the servicer solely for the administrative convenience of the servicer in servicing the obligation. Upon written request by the obligor, the servicer shall provide the obligor, to the best knowledge of the servicer, with the name, address, and telephone number of the owner of the obligation or the master servicer of the obligation.
        15 USC 1641(g)1 states “In addition to other disclosures required by this title, not later than 30 days after the date on which a mortgage loan is sold or otherwise transferred or assigned to a third party, the creditor that is the new owner or assignee of the debt shall notify the borrower in writing of such transfer, including—
        ‘‘(A) the identity, address, telephone number of the new creditor;
        ‘‘(B) the date of transfer;
        ‘‘(C) how to reach an agent or party having authority to act on behalf of the new creditor;
        ‘‘(D) the location of the place where transfer of ownership of the debt is recorded; and
        ‘‘(E) any other relevant information regarding the new creditor.
        Please provide me with the following:
        • What the money you say I owe is for;
        • Explain and show me how you calculated what you say I owe;
        • Provide me with copies of any papers that show I agreed to pay what you say I owe; (STATUE OF FRAUDS)
        • Provide a certified copy of said note to show that said note is owned by the creditor.
        • Identify the name, address, and telephone number current owner of the debt as defined by 15 USC 1641(f)2 and whether the debt has been transferred to any other creditor pursuant to 15 USC 1641(g)1 and the name of the new creditor address, and telephone number of the new creditor; the date of transfer; how to reach an agent or party having authority to act on behalf of the new creditor; the location of the place where transfer of ownership of the debt is recorded; and any other relevant information regarding the new creditor.;
        • the result of the NPV test and the detailed explanation of the NPV methodology and model including all formulas and variables for the modification application for 100 Fulton Avenue Hempstead, New York 11550.

        If your offices have reported invalidated information to any of the three major Credit Bureau’s (Equifax, Experian or TransUnion), said action might constitute fraud under both Federal and State Laws. Due to this fact, if any negative mark is found on any of my credit reports by your company or the company that you represent I will not hesitate in bringing legal action against you for the following:
        • Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
        • Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
        • Truth In Lending Act
        • Defamation of Character

        Also during this validation period, if any action is taken which could be considered detrimental to any of my credit reports, I will consult with my legal counsel. This includes any information to a credit reporting repository that could be inaccurate or invalidated or verifying an account as accurate when in fact there is no provided proof that it is.
        If your offices fail to respond to this validation request within 30 days from the date of your receipt, all references to this account must be deleted and completely removed from my credit file and a copy of such deletion request shall be sent to me immediately.
        I would also like to request, in writing, that no telephone contact be made by your offices to my home or to my place of employment. If your offices attempt telephone communication with me, including but not limited to computer generated calls or correspondence sent to any third parties, it will be considered harassment and I will have no choice but to file suit. All future communications with me MUST be done in writing and sent to the address noted in this letter.
        This is an attempt to correct your records, any information obtained shall be used for that purpose.
        Best Regards,
        John Doe

    • Hello James, Very insightful…I am in California and had a property sold under the direction of MERS with Aurora as Servicer back in 2006. Unaware of the procedural rules you have noted. Can a foreclosure be reversed by not following these rules?

  2. Pingback: Deadly Clear | SECURITIZED DISTRUST – PART TWO | Challenge Your Lender

  3. Pingback: SECURITIZED DISTRUST – PART TWO

  4. I been reporting this exact situation with MERS, Wells Fargo Bank and Ginnie Mae. It so refreshing to see the world is finally getting it. This crime is huge a most Americans don’t realize the financial problem they are faced with because of Ginnie Mae Mortgage Backed Securities and the crimes committed with the illegal foreclosures that have been committed. This is about “Contract Law”!

  5. In 2008 we re-mortgaged with Countrywide Home Loans (FHA loan). There was an accident and we filed for partial claim #1. Took over 1 year of massive paperwork and the claim was accepted and paid. Back to normal servicing. Countrywide sold out to BAC Home Loans and then transitioned to Bank of America. In 2010 husbands health failed and filed partial claim #2. FHA approved and paid claim in August 2010. Thereafter received letter from BAC Home Loans back to normal servicing and Precepatae to Discontinue and End filed in courthouse by BAC attorneys. In October 2010 received notice of intent to foreclose. We frantically called FHA and BOA to see what happened, as we continued to pay our monthly mortgage payments. FHA blamed BOA and vica versa. In the end spoke to a CEO at FHA (Kevin) and was told they were instructed to reverse payments due to an overpayment. FHA reversed ALL payments made on PC2, and never notified us of their intentions, nor did BAC Home Loans notify us of their intentions to have payments reversed. We continually made monthly mortgage payments until BOA (now Bank of America and not BAC Home Loans) would not accept our payment in March of 2012. We had hired an attorney in Florida (May of 2012) and nothing seems to be spurring on it. We have an IRS lien for PIT 2005, 2006 holding back the modification process. BOA wants a certification of subordination from IRS and IRS wants proof that mod will take place (a catch 22 situation here). None of this would have happened hadn’t the payments been reversed. We have wrong doing done to us here. We have had 2 court hearings; granted 60 day stay at both. Time is running out. We now had to go per the advice of the Court Master to CACLV to get help. Any help would be appreciated on our situation at hand. We have lived in our home since 1974 and do not want to lose our home.

    • There are several good foreclosure defense attorneys in Florida… Not many good Judges though. Jacqulyn Mack, Mack Law Firm; Matt Weidner – two good defense attorneys off the top of my list. Sure there are several more.

  6. I have interesting insight for you. I value homes for the banks/servicers considering 1. Loan Mods, 2. Short Sale, 3. full forclosures. I have spoken to over THREE THOUSAND home owners. Here is the story Ive heard from almost all—just change the owner name and its a clone. 1. The borrowerfs were is trouble financially, sometimes ONLY needing one or two payments skipped so they cvould get back on track. In some case3s, they were not in any dificulty but simply wanted a loan modification. In almost every case, they were told that they had to be 2 payments behind to qualify for the governments loan mod guidelines. Many protested. Many told me that the person giving them the advice at the lender said: “We cant ‘officially’ tell you not to make payments but thats what has to be done. They asked for the lon mod packages and stopped making payments. This started an incredible time consuming process that for many stretched into over a year. The lenders lied,. lost material, made excuses, etc. In one case, a man sent in his supporting tax data by fed ex, which is how he was told to do it. He started calling to see what the answer was. He called for WEEKS then finally was told: “Didnt anyone tell you? We dont take them that way any more—you have to use a special fax number.” I heard hundreds of stories like that. With all of them, the time stretched out from months to as much as 2 years! Many were told over the phone that they didnt qualify, or were sent multiple requests for info they had already sent. Some received written turndowns with a demand for payment. All had thousands of dollars in back payments due along with fines, interest, legal fees, etc. Only a few had the money to pay it and they kept their homes but didnt receive a loan mod. I spoke to only FOUR people who actually had their loan modified and one had his payments actually go higher!

    My own loan was with a savings and loan that closed down. The loan had been pooled and securitized. I asked for a ONE month abeyance of payment due to a short illness causing lost income. I was told the same thing as above, and stopped making payments, starting a downhill roll on my credit, which was good. I was given all the frustrating lies as outlined above. I was illegally turned down sevberal times and kept giving paperwork while my back due grew out of reach. They finally filed notice of default and set an auction date. THEN, (note—not before or during) they had MERS fill out assignment paperwork! It had not been done prior to that point. Had they the legal right to be advising me to begin with? The MERS document was obvious fraud. There were two spaces for notaries with two different typed names, but each was signed with ONE INITIAL, which isnt legal, and the initial was not contained in either of the two typed names! My atty took it to a judge and he took only one quick look at it and put the forclosure on hold. That started months of fighting with the servicer. Paperwork back and forth, atty fees growing, etc. Finally the servicer withdrew their forclosure and wanted me to agree not to sue them or MERS, which I didnt agree. Our state of Oregons atty general passed laws that forced lenders to give people in default a new chance to apply for government program assistance and lender loan mods. We all know that the HAMP type programs have all been a total bust. Only people who could really qualify for normal loans received approval…what the atty general hadnt realized is that it applied to regular forclosures so all enders stopped filing for those and switched to JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE!! Those filings have piled up and almost no auctions are now seen on the courthouse steps. I have heard nothing from my ‘lender’ now for almost a year. I am going to be suing the servicer based on fraud and other serious reasons which I wont divulge here. My credit is totally shot. Ive lostthe ability to take advantage of record low interest rates. I will have to declare BK to keep from judgements.

    THOUSANDS of owners were set up for failure by being told to stop making payments—the banks WANTED the homes back! They wanted to foreclose to be able to take advantage of Mortgage Insurance and government programs designed to float them through losses so the system wouldnt fail. The banking system has been corrupt and dangerous for decades and our tax money is used to bail them out. They dont really take losses, and now they will end up with millions of properties in this nation that they will be keeping as corporate owned rentals while selling here and there as the market rises. Its called ‘shadow inventory’. Big money is now buying homes from the lenders. Tens of thousands of them because rents are also at record levels. We are becoming a nation of renters instead of being a part of the old American Dream. Its now the American Nightmare, as we sheep were herded down the sutes by the banking system with all its fraud and unsafe practices. Im seeing a few newcases now where judges are saying nothing was wrong with MERS transactions!! Dont they understand? How can they judge withoiut being an expert on this crazy subject? Ive stoped making payments on my taxes and insurance also and sit in limbo waitingfor the service3rs next move. I may start my suit before they do anything. Good luck to all of you—everyonewho was told to stop making payments should sue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s