READ SLOWLY, Breathe, repeat Mr Cooper 10Q
LivingLies: “The time may now be coming where the court systems and Federal and State legislatures must come to terms with two inescapable legal facts:
(1) That borrowers who sent TILA rescission notices — and particularly those who sent them within 3 years of consummation of the mortgage — still own the land that was deemed “lost” in foreclosure.
(2) That such borrowers possess valid claims to recover title, possession and money damages.
It was bound to happen and now it has. In one case, a judge is asking the following questions and inviting briefs on the following subjects: What is the effect of the failure to return consideration upon an attempt to exercise the right of TILA Rescission?
What is the effect on rescission if the borrower continues to pay?
Does TILA pertain to refinancing?”
LivingLies: “The prima facie case for the homeowner is simply that the notice of rescission was sent, and that the statute makes rescission effective by operation of law, and that the defendants are proceeding as though they still have a right to foreclose or to collect the debt contrary to the method for collection described in 15 U.S.C. §1635.
I think the problem could be that lawyers favor pleading a violation of statute and therefore present TILA rescission as a claim. This is a mistake. It is an event. The pursuit of a foreclosure is not, in my opinion, a violation of the TILA rescission statute. It is the pursuit of a claim that does not exist. The claim does not exist is the right to foreclose. The claim that still exists is the right to collect on the debt.
There is only one party category that possesses the right to collect on the debt under the TILA rescission statute, to wit: it is a party who has paid value for the debt and therefore owns it. Theoretically the party to bring the foreclosure could be owners of the debt, but usually, that is not the case. Usually, they are concealing any information about the identity of the owners of the debt. They can only get away with that if a notice of rescission has not been sent. It is only the notice of rescission that removes and cancels the original loan agreement containing the right to foreclose.
Therefore any pleading, motion or argument from a party whose legal standing was dependent upon the existence of the mortgage or deed of trust must be ignored unless they first establish that they still have legal standing because they paid value for the debt and they own the debt, or because they are authorized representatives of an identified owner of the debt.”
Justice League: “On July 8, Deutsche Bank presented the full details of its latest strategic plan to become a leaner, more profitable organization. These included 18,000 jobs cuts across its global workforce and the closure of its equities business.
The bank wasted no time in firing staff. Deutsche’s chief executive Christian Sewing said of the cuts at the time: “Let me really emphasize that this is the bitter part of our decisions.”
Financial News ’s Nell Mackenzie spoke to a member of Deutsche’s stock-trading team in London who lost their job during the restructuring and agreed to share their account of the day on condition of anonymity.”
LivingLies “In response to the rising number of requests for us to write briefs or narrations for briefs I submit this article which is my recent response to such a request. Here is an uncomfortable fact: most appeals arise because of mistakes made by the litigant in trial court, not the judge. All appeals MUST be…”
LivingLies: “The most salient part of the bill, in my opinion, is the part about retaining risk. It is an official acknowledgment, in addition to other governmental findings that the investment banks and hedge funds who played the unregulated securitizations scheme simply retained no risk or so little risk of loss as to be just a cost of doing business.
This bill seeks to take that issue head-on and prevent “lenders” from (a) hiding their identities and (b) creating junk loan products for the purpose of selling and trading unregulated securities.
I don’t think there is anything more important than the recognition that all or most of the risk of loss has been parsed out into many attributes each of which was sold to different classes of investors using different classes of unregulated security instruments.
None of the buyers or traders in such securities ever purchased the debt of a borrower even they paid money equivalent to a purchase of the debt.
No legal title or right to enforce any debt, note or mortgage was ever conveyed to the holders of “REMIC” certificates nor any other class of investors. Without having technically sold the debt, the investment bank retains bare legal title to the debt, which is an outcome anticipated by the framers of the Uniform Commercial Code Article 9 §203, adopted in all 50 states as law of each state.
Bare legal title might be enough to enforce a note that qualifies as a negotiable instrument (article 3) but it is not sufficient to enforce a mortgage in foreclosure.”
LivingLies: “With debts, financial analysts and innovators discovered that a debt can be broken up into different attributes — interest, principal, monthly payments, fees etc. And they found that each of these attributes could be separately sold. But this created a monetary split which the law did not recognize.
Nevertheless, it occurred. The law requires the presence of a specific legal person who possesses a claim based upon actual loss from nonpayment. With the split, the potential claimants immediately broadened to everyone who had purchased any attribute of the debt. This makes it difficult if not impossible to present or even identify one legal person who actually has the legal standing to bring a claim for nonpayment.
Hence no creditor is alleged or identified and no ownership of the debt is alleged or proven. [. . .]
Securitization, to be clear, is the process of distributing the risk of any investment to many people. There is nothing wrong with it. It has been done for centuries and it is the basis for capitalism which is our system and seems, by general agreement, to be the best economic system humans have yet to devise, despite its obvious shortcomings.
“Securitization” since 1983 has taken on a more particular meaning, i.e., the distribution of risk on consumer debt, and in particular residential loans because those are the biggest debts. All paper instruments that declare ownership of a particular asset derive their value from that asset.
So all such paper instruments are by definition derivatives whether the paper is a certificate of common stock, a bond, car title or anything else. “Derivatives” has taken on a more particular meaning, i.e., instruments that derive their value from debt.
In theory securitization of debt can be accomplished in one of two ways: either many people invest in one debt or many people invest in many debts. The obvious answer is that diversification of investment diminishes the risk of a total loss. So securitization became the investment by many people into many debts.”
Past Broadcasts can be found on the link below. Well worth the listen.
LivingLies: “The continued appearance of DiTech and or Aurora is actually a sparkling example of arrogance emanating from the investment banks that too often control the narrative. If either DiTech or Aurora ever owned a single debt, it was probably one in a million.
With the bankruptcy petitions involving several entities bearing the name of DiTech or Aurora and additional bankruptcies involving closely related entities like GMAC and Lehman Brothers, somehow we have been led to believe that the investment banks were so negligent that they actually left the loans in the entities that filed petitions for relief in bankruptcy with schedules that were devoid of virtually any loans.”
LivingLies: “If a trust is named or implied as mortgagee or beneficiary you are not just threatening the one case of foreclosure filed against you, but all foreclosures initiated in the name of that trust.”
LivingLies: “Where the nonjudicial post-foreclosure trustee sale is not property initiated, ” … a borrower may base a wrongful foreclosure claim on allegations that the foreclosing party acted without authority because the assignment by which it purportedly became beneficiary under the deed of trust was not merely voidable but void.” (Yvanonova, supra, at pp. 851-852.) “A void contract is without legal effect. (Rest.2d Contracts,§ 7, com. A.) “It binds no one and is a mere nullity.” (Little v. CFS Service Corp. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1354, 1362, 233 Cal.Rptr. 923.)
“Such a contract has no existence whatever. It has no legal entity for any purpose and neither action nor inaction of a party to it can validate it …. ” (Colby v. Title Ins. And Trust Co. (1911) 160 Cal. 632, 644, 117 P. 913.) “If a purported assignment necessary to the chain by which the foreclosing entity claims that power is absolutely void, meaning of no legal force or effect whatsoever, [internal citations omitted] the foreclosing entity has acted without legal authority by pursuing a trustee’s sale, and such an unauthorized sale constitutes a wrongful foreclosure. (Yvanonova, supra, at pp. 855-856; citing Barrionuevo v. Chase Bank, N.A., at pp. 973-974.”