Dear God – I love this post. And just before Good Friday and Easter – Thank you. Amen!
Living Lies: “If the investment banks and the investors are not losing money arising from “nonpayments”, forbearances sand moratoriums then who is losing money?
The myth is that servicers are losing money. That isn’t true. Mr. Cooper, Ocwen et al have no liability to investors. Who does?
It turns out that the investment banks have a theoretical discretionary liability to investors that they are only honoring because they are trying to sell more certificates. They have no obligation to actually make those payments because this is an “event” (in their contract with investors) that they could declare and thus temporarily or permanently reduce or suspend payments to investors.”
One Question, Mr . Cooper – Whaddah y’all do with the $29+ Trillion in Bailout money from the Federal Reserve from 2007-2010? http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_698.pdf
LIVING LIES: “The foreclosure mill lawyer should be pressed as to the identity of his client and whether he represents, for example, US Bank, or some trust or some “certificate holders.” The lawyer can’t answer because the answer is none of the above. The lawyer represents a servicer who is receiving instructions from an investment bank. The lawyer will give an evasive answer. The homeowner should object and request the mediator note that the appearance of the Plaintiff is in question and unresolved.”
LIVING LIES: “But since hardly anyone persists, the banks continue to stonewall. Despite the fact that the foreclosure is a hoax, they win because homeowners either give up or don’t pay a lawyer enough money to really litigate the case for them. They want the result without paying for it. Our system doesn’t work that way…”
LIVING LIES: “It’s complicated. Giving the investors money was a pay down of the obligation owed by the investment Banks, not the Borrowers. It didn’t change anything in the trust.
But that begs the real question. The trust never owned anything to begin with. The trust does not exist as a legal person under any law of any jurisdiction simply because there is absolutely nothing in it. Therefore there is no law that could or would support any claim on behalf of a REMIC trust as a claimant in bankruptcy, a Plaintiff in judicial foreclosure or a beneficiary in nonjudicial foreclosure.
Yes it is that simple. But getting there is difficult particularly when dealing with widely held misconceptions of the facts. And failure to raise the point might in effect give the lawyers for “the trust” judicial standing for the purpose of that action in court.”
LIVING LIES: “The bottom line is that every decision regarding payoff, collection, forbearance and foreclosure must satisfy the conditions of the alleged REMIC securitization.
The securitization is most often proffered in court in the form of a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) which in turn is supposed to have a Mortgage Loan Schedule (MLS) attached but the MLS is actually a fabricated document that didn’t exist when the PSA was created.
So if you want to settle a foreclosure, it must pass through several layers of approvals, and the authority for each level is in considerable doubt.”
Source: The Reason Why the PSA Becomes Part of the Loan Contract and Therefore the Borrower Has Standing to at Least Make Inquiries About the PSA Terms, Exhibits and Actual Workings of the Parties to It
Besides giving the obvious relief to many homeowners facing dispossession from their homes, this provides homeowners with a unique period of time in which they can prepare to confront the participants who are pursuing schemes of illegal foreclosures. While most foreclosures and evictions will be suspended don’t make the mistake of thinking they are cancelled.…
So the question of the day is this: After tallying all of the Wells Fargo scandals why would anyone, much less a judge, accept the facial validity of documents knowing that the source of those documents had engaged in a long-term pattern of conduct that involved falsifying documents?
Why would any judge not insist on actual proof instead of allowing Wells Fargo to make use of presumptions based upon the apparent credibility of documents?
Good questions. So Judge, you follow this – can you answer these questions honestly? Are you compromised? Is (or was) your own mortgage with Wells Fargo? Are you invested in “preferred” (betting against the American Homeowners) MBS?
There is nothing wrong with securitization. it has been the basis for capitalism for hundreds of years. You can argue about the flaws of capitalism but it is still the best system devised, so far, in human evolution. But theft is not capitalism.
Unfortunately the United States Supreme Court seems to be moving dangerously close the edge by allowing theft to prevail and the Securities and Exchange Commission is arguing with the court about it. For those concerned about the future of the country now i the time to start making calls to public figures and letting them know how you feel about this.
Bottom Line: the consensus view that we are dealing with unpaid loans is false. There can’t be a default if all the players are getting paid and actually making money on the decline in the value of the loan data.
And those false pretenses included false or incomplete appraisals and other computations of viability of loans — a duty that is strictly put on the lenders (TILA) not the borrowers who as a matter of statute and public policy do not have the education, training skills or understanding of mortgage lending.