THIS IS WHY A FORENSIC AUDIT IS SO VERY IMPORTANT!

What role does securitization play in the home mortgage market?

  
I purchased my investment property in 2005 for $2.1 million dollars. Recently, (over the past 18 months) I've had a tremendously high vacancy rate due to the poor economy and it began taking a toll on all my reserves just to maintain the property. I tried to negotiate with my lender (Bank of America) for a modification. I went round and round with the bank, submitting documents and so on and in the end, Bank of America denied me for a modification. I couldn't understand why they wouldn't modify my loan when it was clear that the economy hamstringed my ability to service the debt. The only thing that Bank of America could tell me was that the investor was the one who declined the modification. I asked who the investor was and they would not tell me. It was then that I began to look closer at my original loan and I saw on the Deed of Trust that MERS was listed as the Beneficiary. With all the information about MERS in the news I decided to talk to an attorney. My attorney had an auditing company called Lighthouse Consulting Group review my documents for both a forensic analysis of my original loan documents as well as a Mortgage Securitization Audit. It turned out that my loan was securitized in a trust called "Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Trust 2005- 8". It was in this trust; there is a pooling and serving agreement, which governs the rules of the REMIC Trust. In my loans pooling and servicing agreement, it said specifically that any loan modified would require a buy-back from the servicer. Now, it was about this time that I began to default on my loan and was looking at ultimately losing my investment property. I was already 6 months in default at this point. The individual I talked to that is an attorney and real estate broker immediately ordered a forensic audit for predatory lending. Commercial properties do not have TILA and RESPA violations. The attorney also ordered a securitization audit to verify if the lender that filed the NOD was actually in proper standing. Both audits reveled several issues about my loan. First, the forensic audit proved that my lender had wrongfully calculated my payment it was overstated by $350 per month. Secondly, the loan itself was an adjustable loan based off the Libor Index, which was dropping, but the loan always adjusted up. This was a major development in a very positive way for me. Then, I had the securitization audit show that my loan was never securitized properly and the note and deed were not even with the same party. My attorney drafted a complaint, outlining everything I have mentioned. As soon as the lender was served, they contacted my attorney and settled without going to court. The settlement I got was a principal balance reduction of $400,000; my interest rate was reduced to 4.5% fixed for 30 years. The auditing company that produced all of these discoveries was Lighthouse Consulting Group in Santa Ana, CA. My initial contact was Vic Pillai. I reached him at (714) 486- 0654.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_role_does_securitization_play_in_the_home_mortgage_market#ixzz1S0DpsGTT

Related articles

• Certified Securitization Analysis, LLC Emerges from Stealth Mode Providing the Needed Evidence for Victims Caught in the Foreclosure Crisis Crossfire (prnewswire.com)
• Big Banks Easing Terms on Loans Deemed as Risks (nytimes.com)
• Bank of America's Mortgage Deal Questioned (nytimes.com)
• Bank of America Settlement Data Sought From Clients by New York (businessweek.com)
• Forensic Study Exposes Massive Foreclosure Fraud (beavercountyblue.org)
• New York Probing Bank of America Accord, Seeks Client Data (businessweek.com)
• Mortgage Securitization & Clouded Chain of Ownership (tiffanylarthur.wordpress.com)
• Afghan Lawmakers Seek Audit of Second Bank (online.wsj.com)
• Oregon Foreclosures: The Mess That MERS Made, by Phil Querin, Q-Law.com (oregonrealestateroundtable.com)

PROVIDE YOUR JUDGE WITH THE EVIDENCE HE OR SHE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND WHY YOUR LENDER NO LONGER OWNS YOUR LOAN DUE TO SECURITIZATION

Certified Securitization Analysis, LLC Emerges from Stealth Mode Providing the Needed Evidence for Victims Caught in the Foreclosure Crisis Crossfire

 

 

 

CSA Provides Securitization Audit, Analysis, Education, and Litigation Support for Victims of Mortgage-Backed Securities Fraud

PACIFICA, Calif., May 2, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Affecting millions of people nationwide, the severity of the high foreclosure rate is no secret. However, a lesser-known fact is that in many recent foreclosure cases, whereby the underlying mortgage was a victim of predatory securitization, the foreclosures have technically been fraudulent. Consequently, people have been forced or convinced to forego their property on illegal grounds. Given the complex nature of the securitization process many judges presiding over ongoing court litigation cases are unfamiliar with the structure, transaction and terms of mortgage securitization. The majority of lenders who bundled and sold their mortgage loans to the secondary market through securitization continue to misrepresent in judicial and non-judicial foreclosure that they still own the mortgage loans. Unaware of the specific schematics behind such shady foreclosure practices, countless people have forfeited property unnecessarily. And that's why Certified Securitization Analysis, LLC (CSA) (http://www.securitizationanalysis.com) has emerged as a national leader and resource to support residential and commercial property owners who are facing foreclosure dilemmas.  

"Securitization dates back to the 1970s, when mortgage-backed securities were issued for the government and government-sponsored entities such as the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA or Ginnie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC or Freddie Mac), and the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA or Fannie Mae)," saysAdam Meyer, CSA's CEO. "The intention was to provide greater liquidity to the residential markets and promote homeownership. But as referenced in the April 3, 2011 episode of CBS' '60 Minutes,' securitization has been abused and misconstrued. Now, many Americans don't have a clue as to who owns their mortgages. Unaware of how good securitization intentions have ultimately worked against them in the end, our clients have been surprised to learn their mortgage has been converted into something different from what was originally represented to the mortgagor, rendering the original product fraudulent. They're turning to us for help."

The lucrative selling of such a misrepresented product has deceived both mortgagors and investors while greedy lenders and their securitization co-conspirators have profited, Meyers adds. In response, CSA, a California-based mortgage securitization auditing and analysis company, has emerged to educate and assist victims caught knowingly or unknowingly in the crossfire of the mortgage default crisis. CSA has sorted through the complexities of predatory mortgage securitization to uncover wrongdoing and consumer rights' abuses. This firm's strength lies in presenting the facts to its clients in clear, concise terms and examples, and offering various services, including: comprehensive audit and analysis reports; and evidence gathering, consulting and support for the property owner's attorney. Committed to uncovering the truth behind securitized mortgages, CSA provides ethical, professional and unparalleled assistance to homeowners and their legal counsel.

Meyer says, "It's time for someone to uncover the truth behind securitized mortgages, and we're doing exactly that through advanced analysis, relevant and accurate research/information, superior foreclosure defense and litigation support services, and expert witness testimony and court presentations."

For more information, visit: http://www.securitizationanalysis.com.  

About Certified Securitization Analysis, LLC

Certified Securitization Analysis (CSA), LLC is a consumer advocacy firm that assesses due diligence and investigates mortgage securitization fraud. The Company's proprietary methods and processes for audit and analysis focus on legal standing issues in foreclosure situations where the underlying mortgage was securitized. CSA is not a law firm. CSA's information and services are not intended as legal advice and practice.

Logo: http://www.ereleases.com/pic/2011-CSA-logo.jpg

Contact: 

Adam J. Meyer, CEO 
Certified Securitization Analysis, LLC
Phone: 650-888-2275
Fax: 650-240-3585
ameyer@securitizationanalysis.com

http://www.securitizationanalysis.com

This press release was issued through eReleases(R).  For more information, visit eReleases Press Release Distribution athttp://www.ereleases.com.

SOURCE Certified Securitization Analysis, LLC

Related articles

• Certified Securitization Analysis, LLC Emerges from Stealth Mode Providing the Needed Evidence for Victims Caught in the Foreclosure Crisis Crossfire (prnewswire.com)
• Abigail Field Finds Smoking Gun on BofA Securitization Fraud (news.firedoglake.com)
• At Bank of America, more incomplete mortgage docs raise more questions (finance.fortune.cnn.com)
• AG Settlement Just About Cashed, As Principal Reductions Exit the Picture (news.firedoglake.com)
• Mortgage Securitization & Clouded Chain of Ownership (tiffanylarthur.wordpress.com)
• "Bank Of America Faces New Probe; New York Attorney General Launches Investigation Into Mortgage Securitization" and related posts (thenewspundit.com)
• The Next Crisis in Residential Mortgages - New Data Emerges (ritholtz.com)
• Beware of foreclosure scams currently under investigation by the District Atorney (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)
• Oregon Foreclosures: The Mess That MERS Made, by Phil Querin, Q-Law.com (oregonrealestateroundtable.com)
• Use Caution When Selling REO Properties, by Phil Querin, PMAR Legal Counsel, Querin Law, LLC Q-Law.com (oregonrealestateroundtable.com)

GET YOUR TITLE ANALYZED BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF WILL LIE OR WILL REFUSE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT PANEL: TRANSFERS WERE VOID

Posted on April 13, 2011 by Neil Garfield

SEE LIVINGLIES LITIGATION SUPPORT AT LUMINAQ.COM
TRUST ASSET POOLS ARE EMPTY

EDITOR’S NOTE: Here we have the results of hundreds of hours of analysis corroborating everything we have said on this blog about the so-called transfers of mortgages. In plain language, the claim of the pretender lenders is that the mortgage was legally transferred into an asset backed pool governed by a trust created by the pooling and servicing agreement. But the PSA provides restrictions on such transfers and specific requirements as to the steps for transfer. Both the restrictions and requirements were violated in virtually every loan claimed to be in such a pool. New York Law which governs the ability of the trust or trustee to take action or accept assets states unequivocally that as a matter of law, the transfer never took place unless the requirements of the PSA were met.

As this segment points out the defect is not curable because of the terms of the PSA itself. This is why an analysis of title and securitization is so important in defending fraudulent  foreclosures and why I have expressed the opinion that the mortgage is not enforceable by anyone. Because the MONEY was divided up amongst the securitizers as though the loan was transferred. Hence, the obligation stated in the note, even if it were somehow deemed valid, was clearly separated from the mortgage or deed of trust in fact by the actual conduct of the parties in handling the money.

Bottom Line: Most of the foreclosures were and are fraudulent and void or voidable.
NEW YORK STATE LAW: Section 7-2.4 Act of trustee in contravention of trust
Sec.    7-2.4    Act    of    trustee    in    contravention    of    trust.   If the trust is expressed in the instrument creating the estate of the trustee, every sale, conveyance or other act of the trustee in contravention of the trust, except as authorized by this article and by any other provision of law, is void.

RELEVANT PORTIONS FROM CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT PANEL NOVEMBER 16, 2010 REPORT, SUBMITTED UNDER SECTION 125(B)(1) OF TITLE 1 OF THE EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT OF 2008, PUB. L. NO. 110-343, EXAMINING THE CONSEQUENCES OF MORTGAGE IRREGULARITIES FOR FINANCIAL STABILITY AND FORECLOSURE MITIGATION

As described above, in order to convey good title into the trust and provide the trust with both good title to the collateral and the income from the mortgages, each transfer in this process required particular steps.38 Most PSAs are governed by New York law and create trusts governed by New York law.39 New York trust law requires strict compliance with the trust documents; any transaction by the trust that is in contravention of the trust documents is void, meaning that the transfer cannot actually take place as a matter of law.40 Therefore, if the transfer for the notes and mortgages did not comply with the PSA, the transfer would be void, and the assets would not have been transferred to the trust. Moreover, in many cases the assets could not now be transferred to the trust.41 PSAs generally require that the loans transferred to the trust not be in default, which would prevent the transfer of any non-performing loans to the
trust now.42 Furthermore, PSAs frequently have timeliness requirements regarding the transfer in order to ensure that the trusts qualify for favored tax treatment.43
Id. page 19.

38 See Section D.1.a.ii, supra. 39 FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call, supra note 3. 40 N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law § 7-2.4; FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call, supra note 3. 41 FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call, supra note 3. 42 Amended Complaint at Exhibit 5, page 13, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, No. 09-CV-1656 (D.D.C. Sept. 8, 2010) (hereinafter “Deutsche Bank v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation”). 43 See FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call, supra note 3. 44 See, e.g., FBR Foreclosure Mania Conference Call, supra note 3. 45 Restatement (Third) of Prop. (Mortgages) § 5.4 cmt. B (1997).

Related articles

• 60 Minutes Tackles Foreclosure Fraud Tonight, Exposing Unresolved Chain of Title Problems (news.firedoglake.com)
• Chapter 2 (trustdeedinvestment.wordpress.com)
• Five Points on that New Anti-Foreclosure Fraud Settlement Paper by Calomiris, Higgins and Mason. (rortybomb.wordpress.com)
• Gomes decision all thats left is 2932.5 and that was "gutted" by maybry (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)
• Bronx apartment buildings in foreclosure danger (nydailynews.com)
• Chapter 11 (trustdeedinvestment.wordpress.com)
• bad day for the MERS argument in California (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)
• Foreclosure - Rescue Insolvent Homeowner (dianawu88.wordpress.com)
• Judge: Bad Securitization = No Standing to Foreclose (ritholtz.com)
• Real Estate Foreclosures 4/10/11 (knoxnews.com)

DEONTOS.IS REMINDS US ABOUT AN IMPORTANT CASE TO WATCH TOMORROW

Home  »  In Re Walker, Part Deux – March 3rd, 2011, may just be a HUGE day for California Homeowners

In Re Walker, Part Deux – March 3rd, 2011, may just be a HUGE day for California Homeowners

So, when we left our intrepid hero, one Mr. Ricki Walker, back on May 27, 2010, the court had ruled, as I phrased it on Mandelman Matters at the time, that MERS could not foreclose and Citibank could not collect.

“Since no evidence of MERS’ ownership of the underlying note has been offered, and other courts have concluded that MERS does not own the underlying notes, this court is convinced that MERS had no interest it could transfer to Citibank. Since MERS did not own the underlying note, it could not transfer the beneficial interest of the Deed of Trust to another. Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is void under California law.”

As to Citibank’s claim, the Honorable Judge Ronald H. Sargis said…

“Since the claimant, Citibank, has not established that it is the owner of the promissory note secured by the trust deed, Citibank is unable to assert a claim for payment in this case.”

Now in “Normal World,” that would be the end of that, and angels would sing.  But, this isn’t “Normal World”.  We are living in “Banker World,” where things are rarely as they seem and everything is eligible for a do-over… if you’re a banker, that is.

Citibank’s lawyers, realizing that they were now in real trouble, woke up … got out of bed… dragged a comb across their collective head, and filed an objection saying that the Proof of Claim had not been properly served… or not served at all because they never received it… or that they didn’t calendar it properly.  Or, maybe something else happened, your Honor, whatever will work with you.

You see, Citibank had never opposed the objection to the Proof of Claim.

The judge sort of rolled his eyes… because with electronic notice having been provided, there was no way Citi’s lawyers didn’t know about the borrower’s objection, but since he had left Citi “leave to amend” anyway… what the heck… re-deal the cards and let’s play a new hand.

So, the order granting Walker’s objection was vacated, prompting Ricki Walker’s attorney, Mitchell Abdullah, to file a new objection, in the hopes that Judge Sargis would once again have a chance to uphold the rule of law and change the playing field for homeowners in California.

This time, however, Citi’s lawyers have put their Top Gun type lawyer on the case, and so along with their opposition to Walker’s objection, they’ve submitted a declaration, written by William Hultman, Secretary and Treasurer of MERS, who you might remember from the recent opinion on MERS written by Judge Grossman in New York.

Okay, so… Judge Sargis is set to rule on Walker, Part Deux at 10:30 AM on March 3, 2011, in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, Department E, Courtroom 33.

There seem to be a number of unanswered questions about this case, for example…

Mr. Walker signed the note on November 21, 2006.  Citi claims that Blackrock employee endorsed the note sometime in 2007, but the endorsement of the note, by alonge, is not dated, uses different fonts, and according to the debtor expert, it appears fraudulent.  In addition, Mr. Brown, the Blackrock employee, didn’t work there after 2006, according to an investigator hired by the defense, and since the trust wasn’t established until 2007… well, that creates a certain awkwardness.

The way I see it… for whatever that’s worth… Mitchell Abdullah’s chances look pretty darn good for a major win here, and Ricky Walker may just find himself a winner.  But, even more importantly, should the decision go the way it went last time, California’s homeowners will finally have a decision that can begin to meaningfully address a significant amount of the injustice inherent to the state’s foreclosure crisis.

I’m not saying it will be “the answer,” but all journeys begin with a few steps, and this seems like this decision, assuming in favor of Ricki Walker, will represent more than just a few steps.

Ricki Walker and Mitchell Abdullah, by the way, are heros…

According to Ricki Walker’s bankruptcy filing:

• November 2006, he buys his home.
• He owes $1.473 million on his primary residence, first and second mortgages combined.
• His pre-petition amounts in arrears totals $262,851.
• He also has a rental property with two mortgages from our good friends at Bank of America.
• One is $697,615.
• The second is $73,000 and change.
• The home is said to be worth about #334,000.
• It rents for $1196 a month.

Walker owns his own business, Ricki Walker DBA Rick’s Janitorial.  He has $5,884 in current cash assets, and his statement of total current monthly income shows that he makes $1198/month as of February 18, 2010.

He owes $1.473 million on his home.  Monthly income of $1198 a month, owes $1.473 million.

And someone out there wants to blame the borrower for this?  You’ve got to be kidding me.

~~~

If you’re the type that wants to blame the borrower here… let me ask you this:

If a 7 year-old boy shoots and kills his 5 year-old little brother, who do you blame:

1. The 7 year-old for shooting the 5 year-old.
2. The 5 year-old for being so annoying that his brother couldn’t stop himself from shooting him?
3. Violent video games and television programs.
4. Too much sugar.
5. The Republicans.

Stay tuned… Thursday will be here before you know it.  Cross your fingers, okay?

Mandelman out.

Related articles

• JUDGE SCHACK| Dismisses Case With Prejudice Against Citibank Due To Counsel Failure To Comply (via Foreclosureblues) (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)