Friday, June 3, 2011

NEIL GARFIELD'S LIVINGLIES REPORT

WAKE UP CALL: COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY STOPS MERS DEAD

“We’re a nation of laws. Everyone knew that MERS didn’t have the right to appear as a beneficiary, but it would have been inconvenient to act on this because MERS was in widespread use throughout the banking industry. It was wrong, wrong, wrong, but everyone was doing it. Just like they were doing ‘no-doc’ loans and other sleights of hand. Just like the banks were doing so many bad things to homeowners. All they wanted to do was increase their profits – no matter who it hurt or how wrong their practices might be.” — Philip Kramer

BANKS THOUGHT THEY HAD IT FIXED, BUT AGENCY GOES FORWARD ANYWAY

Editorial Note: The agencies are starting to realize that MERS is like a cancer that spread throughout the mortgage markets and spilled over onto the balance sheets of banks who were “members.” The banks that are regulated by OCC now must deal with the fact that their balance sheet assets, many of which are considered to be tier 1 assets are not just downgraded to Tier 3, but in actuality are wiped off completely.
The effect of this action, is to cast doubt, at a minimum, on a substantial amount of the assets on the balance sheets of such banks. This in turn reduces the reserve that banks must keep against lending and other activities. The net effect is going to be a reduction in the size of many banks as they crank down to reflect the reality that has been true all along: the mortgage, notes and obligations claimed on the balance sheet neither existed, nor were they ever assets of the bank.
In turn, the effect on the marketplace and the cases that have gone through the court system and the cases that are going through the court system, is that any MERS mortgage or Deed of Trust is obviously flawed, defective, unenforceable just as we have been saying all along. The effect of naming MERS was the same as naming Donald Duck as Mortgagee or Beneficiary. There was, in effect, no Mortgagee or beneficiary, which means that (a) the loan specified in the promissory note executed by the borrower was never secured by a perfected lien and the Mortgage Deed or Deed of Trust, can now be attacked in a quiet title action, and (b) any foreclosure based upon a MERS deed should be dismissed. This would reduce the “asset” to an unsecured claim against a homeowner who is probably broke, and without any collateral on which to they can rely to mitigate “damages.”
But there are no damages. The effect also includes a probable consequence with respect to the obligation itself. As the agencies unravel this scheme of the illusion of securitization, they are coming to realize that the note itself does not describe the actual transaction that occurred. At a minimum this would allow in parole evidence, but beyond that it creates the presumption that the note was invalid to begin with and was merely a sham instrument used as an excuse for the feeding frenzy that followed the sale of mortgage bonds to investors. Thus not only is the “asset” unsecured, it obviously does not even exist. The real asset is the obligation that arose as a result of the Borrower accepting the benefits of funding of the loan, and that was and remains undocumented, because the real creditors are the investors — no matter how you split hairs.
Since the real creditors are the investors, the asset, if it belongs to anyone, is held strictly for the benefit of the investors who can use said asset as a derivative asset on THEIR balance sheet. In fact, this is what they do. But the investors have marked down the value of their “asset” to whatever claim they have for being tricked into buying empty defective bogus mortgage bonds. The investors, who now know of all the fraud perpetrated against themselves find no difficulty in accepting the fact that the homeowners were deceived as well by the same fraud. Thus the investors, who are the creditors, have chosen NOT to pursue the collection of the obligation against homeowners who have all sorts of affirmative defenses and counterclaims for fraud, violations of statute and a long list of other torts and breaches of contract.
Instead the investors, who are the real creditors in the actual cash transaction, since the money came from them, have elected to sue the investment bankers for 100 cents on the dollar rather than bring a claim against the homeowner for pennies on the dollar, which could morph into a net loss if the damages owed to the homeowner exceed the putative damages owed to the investor for advancing the funds.
Philip Kramer Weighs in on latest settlement agreement between the U.S. government and MERS Corp.Kramer Kaslow: Office of Comptroller of the Currency signs Cease and Desist Order with MERS Corp.
Calabasas, CA (PRWEB) June 03, 2011
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has just signed a Cease and Desist settlement agreement with MERS Corp (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems). Among other things, the Cease and Desist order finds, “We have identified certain deficiencies and unsafe or unsound practices by MERS and MERSCORP that present financial, operational, compliance, legal and reputational risks to MERSCORP and MERS, and to the participating Members.” (OCC No. AA-EC-11-20; Board of Governors; Docket Nos. 11-051-B-SC-1,11-051-B-SC-2; FDIC-11-194bOTS No. 11-040; FHFA No. EAP-11-01)
Noted attorney Philip Kramer, a senior partner at the law firm of Kramer & Kaslow provides insight, “MERS Corp is the owner of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), one of the cornerstones of the current banking crisis. In order to cut up loans and move the pieces around the world at the speed of electronics again and again and again, until no one is sure who owns what, financial institutions have been using MERS as the “beneficiary”, a legal term which in practical terms means they are entitled to foreclose on behalf of the lender – except MERS is nothing more than an electronic database. They are often named as beneficiary. However in order to legally be named as beneficiary they would have had to put up funds on the loan. Not to mention the fact that the recordation itself is not even official. BUT most importantly, MERS is never a Holder in Due Course.”
Philip Kramer goes on to observe that, “We’re a nation of laws. Everyone knew that MERS didn’t have the right to appear as a beneficiary, but it would have been inconvenient to act on this because MERS was in widespread use throughout the banking industry. It was wrong, wrong, wrong, but everyone was doing it. Just like they were doing ‘no-doc’ loans and other sleights of hand. Just like the banks were doing so many bad things to homeowners. All they wanted to do was increase their profits – no matter who it hurt or how wrong their practices might be.”
The full text of the consent decree can be found at the following URL:

Enhanced by Zemanta

FEDERAL COURT RULING IN OREGON IS NOT YET BINDING IN STATE COURTS -- BUT IT SHOULD BE.



Mortgage Recording ‘Fix’
Falls Short in Oregon

An effort by the financial services industry to pass a law rewriting mortgage recording requirements in Oregon has died in a state House committee.
Last week, we looked at a federal court ruling that threatened to set back foreclosures in Oregon after challenging the validity of foreclosures done on loans that had been registered with the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, or MERS, a private electronic lien-registry network.
According to the Oregonian, the ruling galvanized mortgage companies and title insurers to amend state recording requirements so that banks that used MERS to track ownership of mortgages would face relaxed requirements when bringing foreclosure actions. The amendment would have relaxed requirements that lenders ensure public recording in local land records before foreclosing on borrowers without going to court.
Last week’s decision said that banks should be required to process foreclosures through courts in Oregon for loans that are in the MERS system. While the decision could carry weight in other courts, it isn’t binding in state courts.
A spokeswoman for MERS said the ruling was “inconsistent” with other state decisions, citing two in the past year that found MERS had satisfied state law. The spokeswoman said MERS planned to appeal.
Last year, the Kansas Legislature passed a law to clarify doubts raised by the state’s courts over the proper authority of MERS. But in Oregon, the Legislature ultimately passed an unrelated housing bill without attaching the MERS amendment. Rep. Jeff Barker told the Oregonian that he had received more blowback over the proposed measure “than anything all session.”

Enhanced by Zemanta

STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD KEEPS YOU UP WITH ALL THE IMPORTANT FORECLOSURE NEWS

                        _____________________________________________________________________________________
Stop Foreclosure Fraud presents the following...
 
  1. At least they agree a cloud hoovers over foreclosures… Oregon Live- A bid by major financial institutions to retroactively waive Oregon recording requirements blocking foreclosure sales appears in jeopardy but will get at least one more day, a legislative leader says. Scribd iPaper(56770733, 'key-yffs6yq1bun6j1jpddk', 600, 600); © 2010-11 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved. www.StopForeclosureFraud.com Tweet This! Email this via Gmail Share [...]

  2. Tennessee BK Trustee Says In 60 Cases This Year, Lenders Couldn’t Produce Original Note - 2011-06-01 00:07:38-04SHOW ME THE NOTE!! Bizjournals Nashville- Federal legislation introduced last week is giving credence to a battle being fought in Middle Tennessee by bankruptcy trustee Henry “Hank” Hildebrand. The Bill can be found in the link below… VT Senator Patrick Leahy Introduces Bill To Fight Creditor Fraud In Bankruptcy Courts © 2010-11 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. [...]
  3. ROADBLOCK | Banks Hit Foreclosure Hurdle - 2011-06-01 00:16:43-04
    WSJ- Banks trying to foreclose on homeowners are hitting another roadblock, as some delinquent borrowers are successfully arguing that their mortgage companies can’t prove they own the loans and therefore don’t have the right to foreclose. These “show me the paper” cases have been winding through the courts for several years. But in [...]
  4. NYSC Denies Summary Judgment “Chase is either servicing Wells Fargo’s mortgage, or has acquired unrecorded assignment of the mortgage” | PIZZUTO v. SORIANO - 2011-06-01 01:01:18-04 ANTHONY PIZZUTO, Plaintiff, v. ALLAN SORIANO; WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; BENEFICIAL HOMEOWNER SERVICE CORPORATION; CHASE HOME FINANCE, L.L.C.; VIRGINIA ADAMS; and RICHARD ADAMS, Defendants. No. 101892/09, Motion No. 2. Supreme Court, Richmond County. May 5, 2011. Excerpt: Helena Soriano first encumbered the subject property in the amount of $20,000.00 on August 26, 1999. This first [...]
  
 
 
 
 
 
Legal information is NOT legal advice.
The information herein should NOT be taken as legal advice and is NOT a substitute for the assistance of a licensed advisor.
I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY.
*posts are scheduled in advance and may not be in real time*
© 2010-11 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved. 
 

Signed Sealed Delivered LLC, PO BOX 11394, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33339, USA 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Consider Bankruptcy to Save Your Home! Trustees Work Harder for Homeowners.


Feds look to give trustees more power

Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2011, 11:40am CDT
Click here to find out more!
Federal legislation introduced last week is giving credence to a battle being fought in Middle Tennessee by bankruptcy trustee Henry "Hank" Hildebrand.
Hildebrand was the subject of a Friday story related to a growing movement across the country: Judges and debtors who force mortgage companies to produce a physical note before foreclosing on a home.
Because in Tennessee judges aren't involved in the foreclosure process, it's been bankruptcy trustees here who have been fighting that battle instead.
In Middle Tennessee, Hildebrand said he's had about 60 cases this year where a lender couldn't produce the actual note, though he is seeing some movement towards compliance.
The legislation, introduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., would give the U.S. Trustee Program, the arm of the Justice Department that oversees foreclosures, the power to sanction servicers and lenders who submit false claims, overstate what's owed or don't produce proper documentation.
"The bill would give the Justice Department and the United States bankruptcy trustee important new tools to combat creditor abuses in the bankruptcy process," Leahy said in a statement.
Specifically, the bill would:
- Clarify that the U.S. trustee has a duty to remedy creditor abuse of the bankruptcy process.
- Allow the bankruptcy court, either on its own or in response to a motion from the trustee, to correct or sanction misconduct and fraud committed by creditors in the bankruptcy process.
- Give power to the trustee to establish audit procedures to ensure that creditors are complying with the law.


Read more: Feds look to give trustees more power | Nashville Business Journal 

Enhanced by Zemanta

"This is a huge assault on our legal system" that risks "turning us into a banana republic." Thomas Ice, Atty


Banks Hit Hurdle to Foreclosures

By NICK TIMIRAOS

Banks trying to foreclose on homeowners are hitting another roadblock, as some delinquent borrowers are successfully arguing that their mortgage companies can't prove they own the loans and therefore don't have the right to foreclose.
These "show me the paper" cases have been winding through the courts for several years. But in recent months, some judges have been siding with borrowers and stopping foreclosures after concluding that banks' paperwork problems are more serious than previously thought and raise broader ethical questions.
This year, cases in California, North Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Maine, New York, New Jersey, Texas, Massachusetts and others have raised questions about whether banks properly demonstrated ownership.
During the fall, banks temporarily suspended foreclosures to address so-called robo-signing problems, where employees were approving legal documents without properly reviewing them. They said that in weeks they could fix what they considered to be simple clerical errors. But borrowers are uncovering new types of document problems, further delaying banks' efforts to get foreclosures back on track.
In some cases, borrowers are showing courts that banks failed to properly assign ownership of mortgages after they were pooled into mortgage-backed securities. In other cases, borrowers say that lenders backdated or fabricated documents to fix those errors.
"Flawed mortgage-banking processes have potentially infected millions of foreclosures, and the damages against these operations could be significant and take years to materialize," said Sheila Bair, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., in testimony to a Senate committee last month .
Last month, the Maine Supreme Court reversed the foreclosure of Dana and Robin Murphy of Auburn, Me., after concluding that the mortgage company, a unit of HSBC Holdings PLC, filed "inherently untrustworthy" documents. An HSBC spokesman declined to comment.
The case began in 2008 when HSBC filed to foreclose on the Murphys, who hadn't made a mortgage payment in two years. A trial judge initially rejected HSBC's foreclosure because the bank couldn't show it owned the promissory note—in effect, the borrower's IOU. The court later granted the foreclosure after HSBC submitted new paperwork.
However, the Murphys found discrepancies and alleged that the documents were backdated. The court voided the foreclosure and sent the case back to the lower court to determine potential penalties.
Attorneys for borrowers reject the view that they are using arcane legal rules to secure free houses for clients who aren't paying their bills. Efforts to gloss over incomplete or falsified evidence "can't be tolerated by a free society," says Thomas Ice, an attorney in Royal Palm Beach, Fla., who has a similar case before the Florida Supreme Court. "This is a huge assault on our legal system" that risks "turning us into a banana republic."
Laurence E. Platt, a banking-industry lawyer at K&L Gates in Washington, concedes that banks may have been sloppy. But he says "the real assault on the legal system" are efforts by judges and local officials to strip lenders of their rightful ownership and make foreclosures impossible.
In March, an Alabama court said J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. couldn't foreclose on Phyllis Horace, a delinquent homeowner in Phenix City, Ala., because her loan hadn't been properly assigned to its owners—a trust that represents investors—when it was securitized by Bear Stearns Cos. The mortgage assignment showed that the loan hadn't been transferred to the trust from the subprime lender that originated it.
Specific deal agreements required Bear Stearns to assign the loan within three months of the securitization. Because it failed to do so, Alabama Circuit Court Judge Albert Johnson determined, the trust didn't own the mortgage. "The court is surprised to the point of astonishment that the defendant trust did not comply with the terms," of the securitization agreement, he wrote.
The ruling is one of the first in the nation to strip a mortgage trust of an asset it thought it owned. A similar case earlier this year was decided in the bank's favor when it held that the borrower wasn't a party to the securitization agreement.
Nick Wooten, the lawyer for Ms. Horace, says the case won't necessarily influence other decisions unless it is upheld by a higher court. But he says it is "another brick in the wall of trial-court-level cases that clearly show the wheels fell off the bus in the securitization industry during the bubble."
J.P. Morgan Chase hasn't appealed the case. A bank spokesman declined to comment.
Curing incomplete mortgage assignments can be tricky because many lenders that originated subprime loans are still listed as the owner but have gone out of business.
Bill Dallas, former chief executive of subprime lender Ownit Mortgage Solutions Inc., receives between 200 and 300 pieces of mail every month at his former company's California headquarters from companies looking to correct ownership flaws. "Am I surprised? Absolutely not," says Mr. Dallas, who founded and ran the subprime lender until its collapse in late 2006. "I knew this assignment problem was going to be an issue."
Loans with botched assignments or no assignment are "really problematic" because "the person that originated the loan is gone, the person that funded it is gone, and your servicers are confused," he says.
Write to Nick Timiraos at nick.timiraos@wsj.com
Enhanced by Zemanta