What’s next?

In reference to sell of foreclosed properties that have a balance over and beyond the owed amount, I do agree should go to the homeowner. However, in my case the money I have not received as of this date. Please help I need Justice!

Respectfully,
Hattie

Wait, you were NOT underwater in your mortgage anf they foreclosed on you instead of giving you a modification?

How long ago was this?

Banks didnt do the paperwork properly for an awful lot of mortgages. Now when they want to foreclose, they have to produce proof of ownership and they can’t.

Next step, for the less scrupulous: fraud. Made up signatures, fraudulent papers, forgeries. I hope a lot of people facing foreclosure see this post and take it to their lawyer.

Why is every mortgagee not demanding documentation. My guess is that 90% couldn’t be produced, and debtors would be scott free.

I read this and thought it might also be a scam. Banks offering customers with mortgages to put off foreclosures for three months if customers would turn over their mortgage documents to them. I have heard advice to homeowners that they should require the institution that is foreclosing to produce the documentation that they own the mortgage because often, because these things have been bundled and resold, they don’t actually have it. And if they can’t produce proof, they can’t foreclose. Does anybody know anything about this?

That was the gist of my comment. The banks ain’t got the docs. In court the banks would lose, because I think they bear the burden of proof. So stiff ‘em.

And voila, MERS is merde!

The deviancy in this kind of fraud is simply amazing to me.

every person threatened with foreclosure should demand to see the orginal “wet ink” version of thier paperwork.

BTW< I am hearing that some of these Document companies are using really high quality color printers to print out scans that will show the signature in blue in and trying to pass them off as the originals.

I spoke to a buddy of mine who has a corner office at a too big to fail bank, and told him the color printer story and he asked me if I need the name of a good ink/paper expert to use in court.

Which I took to be a confirmation that this is happening.

Your understanding is basically, theoretically correct. it depends on how skillfully the defense is handled, and it depends on how savvy the judge is.

Here in NYS, the judges inthe new mortgage forclosure parts, have been getting special CLE put together by the Bankrupcty court.

But I’ve heard judges in Florida think defendants are nuts when they try to raise ethese issue–that is total hearsay.

Would love to hear from soem FLA lawyers with first hand experiences to talk about.

Well, if the forging scheme is widespread, as indicated by your hearing about it, it should be publicized. Don’t know why all this is not getting wider coverage. Oh wait. *smacking forehead* Corp news peeps know they shouldn’t talk about it.

My lawyer stated one has to file a lawsuit to demand documentation.

The possibility that these banks might have widespread difficulties in producing the original documents for these bundled mortgages if they went to foreclosure was actually raised and reported in the business media at least two years ago. Now, the trick is to inform all these foreclosable mortgagees that they may have a way out.

Here comes the next wave down for MBS’s. And, probably, the stock market. I got no tears for these banks.

Have you heard of “stacking”? This is the term servicers use to order the papers in the loan documentation file before they bundle then send the files of to the secondary loan pool buyer.

It’s standard practice to have all the wet ink docs on the left side of the folder, and then origination, appraisal, etc., in time order on the right side of the folder/file.

So the whole file should be produced, or at least demanded, as one could verify the veracity of the signed docs. That includes the original 1008.

Call me crazy, but foreclosure is a legal process through which lenders assert their rights represented in the mortgage. Part of that process is *proving* that they indeed hold the mortgage. Proving that they hold a copy of the mortgage isn’t enough (but I believe that many can’t even do that).

Yes, but that would be cheaper than paying the mortgage. Besides, backing down by your opponents is not out of the question (though I wouldn’t count on it). I’ve stiffed 3/4 of all lawyers I’ve ever hired for non-competence, and none has ever challenged me.

Not in my state. It’s a trust deed/note state, foreclosure is non-judicial. Cynthia could explain the difference. I can’t

What do you mean by ‘foreclosure’ is non-judicial? What state and what does that mean? Lender is not required to submit docs? Sounds fantastic.

Read the recorded deed. If it’s a MERS deed you appear to be in good shape.

Your local title company will get you a copy. Call them, ask for customer service, and they’ll send you a copy of what’s recorded.

I hope a lot of people facing foreclosure see this post and take it to their lawyer.

I share that sentiment. And, I would say, “Hurry!” There is a rot in the law these days, and who knows when it will trickle down to the FLA-style reception that Ms. Kouril spoke of in comment @10.

These laws vary by state, so anything is possible, especially if the banks are especially strong in your state, but I never heard of a non-judicial mortgage process, either. Not that I know much about the field, but it is my impression that the norm is that the mortgagee would have the right to have each and every relevant document produced. What state are you in?

As I understand it there are two forms of loans of homes. First Mortgages and second trust deeds and notes.

In my state, CA, one get a note and signs a trust deed with hypothicates the title. The Title of the home is held by a trustee who has no right of occupancy.

There are three parties in the loan, the borrower, the lender and the trustee. If the borrower defaults, the lender tells the trustee who can foreclose on the home without judicial action. Hence a non-judicial foreclosure.

They’ll send you what MERS has, which may or may not reflect the reality of Who-Holds-The-Note. Not good enough.

Produce The Note is the only way to go. Title companies must be cringing.

You are correct, it’s only the start. Good luck in finding out who holds the note. Loan Servicers normally will not tell you.

Yes! So the reverse is true; produce the note or good luck foreclosing on me.

What happened was these docuemtn handling comapanies scanned the docs and assigned the scanned file an ID # and then the files could be traded electronically.

Problem was, they don’t seem to remeber where they put those hard copy files, and didn’t do the hard copy follow up work–or so it would seem

BTW, a fascination of mine is etymology.

The term ‘mortgage’ essentially means ‘death pledge.’

It’s state dependent. The laws vary greatly. In California there is an appellate ruling that the California Civil Code prevails, so produce the note does not seem effective in California.

So the lender does not need to provide docs? Sounds completely unreasonable. The whole point is that the lender doesn’t have the docs in these complicated mortgages that have been sliced & diced & resold. Hell, in my mortgage, which was make in the late 70s and paid off years ago, they spelled my name wrong 2 different ways, which I pointed out at the closing. If they couldn’t even spell names right long before the housing bubble, whatever would make one think that the docs were in order during the housing bubble? In your example, is the trustee in the pocket of the lender, so the burden of proof is on the borrower?

Nice one.

That was the whole objective of the MERS (Mortgage Electronic Recording System). To avoid the actual paperwork.

In your example, is the trustee in the pocket of the lender, so the burden of proof is on the borrower?

Without filing a lawsuit, yes.

The trustees are typically title companies. The lender has the right to change trustee by filing a assignment of trustee.

Everybody was too busy raking in the fees and laughing at the suckers. I anticipate watching future developments with enjoyment.

In judicial foreclosure states, the enitity wishing to foreclose upon your home has to sue you and get an judgement of foreclosure. It is good to live in one.

In non judicial foreclosure states (which I have ZERO experience with) foreclosure can be obtained by the lender by various means usually centered around giving notice to the soon to be foreclosed upon homeowner. Then the homeowner starts a lawsuit to stop the forecloure.

Nothing I have to say should be mistaken for legal advice.

Yopou need to talk to a lawyer in your jurisdiction and who can look at YOUR specifcs set of facts.

Nothing about this is one size fits all.

Not every mortgage is going to have these kinds of problems, however, because so many will–it is nuts not to at least make inquiry to protect you home.

Yep – so companies whose names generally end in “____ Lenders Services Inc” are the only ones who know which “Iron Mountain” or other similar facility they sent the hard/wet copy docs to.

Frankly, IMO though I am a mere lowly past paralegal, without the execution of wet docs, there is no real ownership on any of these slice-n-dicers. It was a pretend grab from the get go, and they are in no way securitized.

No docs, no dice, dumbasses. Dice roll FAIL!

I live in a non-judicial foreclosure state, and have been on both sides of the foreclosure issue. I have a layman’s understanding of the process.

90 days late – Notice of Default (NOD)
180 days late – Notice of Trustee Sale (NOS)
17 days after NOS, Courthouse steps auction.

These are minimum times.

Borrower has rights to repair the default up to the 180 days point.

I think the point of MERS was to reduce transaction costs–a good thing, and I also think they thought they were moving a paper docuemtn and Liber (giagantic book with handwrititng in it) system into the modern computer age.

It’s just that like all first generation tech, it had more bugs than features. The foregrey part though, that is NOT how you fix a bug.

From your keyboard to God’s ears, I hope. But that sounds right to me, regardless of who has to initiate the action. Again, I have no specific expertise in the field, but just as a matter of general legal principle.

OT but related. In Ulster county NY, Iron Mountain has gigantic storage facilities. I haven’t seen stats about what % of the local economy it is, but it’s got to be significant. There are old, large, limestone mine caves (Rosendale cement, in its day, was the best around. Used in the Statue of Liberty base & Brooklyn bridge but lost its edge when other cement that would set more quickly was invented). Those caves are too damp for doc storage but they are the perfect temp. So IM constructs bldgs in the caves that are dehumidified but don’t need to be temp controlled.

There is a judge in Brooklyn who has been issuing decsions that sound kinda like what you jsut said.

Well, a bit more formal sounding, but you get the feeling that he would love to bust out some slang

The bugs were they forget to amend all states’ laws to make MERS fully legal.

Just speculating, but even if MERS had that purpose, wouldn’t it be limtied to saving money on courier’s fees and duplicating, etc., without obviating the need to retain original copies SOMEWHERE?

Iron Mountain’s share of the Ulster County local economy got a lot bigger after IBM shut the Kingston facility.

Great catch Cynthia, and thanks for sharing it with us all.

I wonder if student loans are being gamed like this?

Awesome!
*ahem, paralegals and judges clerks are often underrated, just saying!*

No, student loans are not secured by property.

Bingo!

Eli is upstairs!
Yet Another Reason Why We Need Campaign Finance Reform

Got that right. My yard guy’s regular job is working for the construction corp that works for IM. He is busy all the time, and often his side job of mowing lawns, gives way to long workweeks. Yesterday when he stopped by to find out what the problem was with my riding mower, he said he has to work Easter Sunday.

You continue to amaze . . . when I worked in Fed Regulated Transportation Staffing (Class A Truckers) our driver files HAD to have certain docs and placed in certain places in the driver file. By fed law. So I hear ya . . again, you continue to amaze at times . . . where’d you get this info . . . . *G* I know cats with fewer lives than you got. ;-)

*bows*

But, (OT) before I get too far down that road, I will be posting a Seminal diary a bit later about needing help connecting the dots to answer a question about the Individual Mandate.

The only Fed Code concurrent with Fed Regs I worked with as a paralegal were FIREEA and then Fannie/Freddie + USPAP. This IRS gobbledy-gook as regards the mandate is killing me.

Having to file a lawsuit to force them to produce documents sounds like garbage to me.

Usually in court the plaintiff, in this case someone claiming to have a mortgage they want to foreclose on, should have to produce sufficient documentation to convince a judge they can proceed with the foreclosure to establish their standing (legal right to be there making a claim worth judicial hearing). That seems rather mundane and ordinary. I’m shocked they haven’t always been required to do that as a matter of course and due process.

Requiring the defendant to sue to get the court to do it’s job is bizarre.

When I left trucking staffing in ’06 that was EXACTLY where the major staffing firms were headed! Scan in, send to corporate, then mail in the hard copy files! NO hard copy records on site for CHP or Fed to audit . . . and lord what knows else to be used against truckers for issues like tickets, accidents, etc. Anything to fire the trucker for cause.

Yeah, and what does that say about the bundled bunch of shit that was bought, sold, and traded and phantom stock generated sold, naked short sold??????? It was all air, crap, from the get go, with ‘goodwill’, real estate appreciation and more pixie dust wrapped around it to make it fly.

Only, there were no source docs, and the values were all over inflated from the get go and more overinflated as they were sold forward and then traded on the exchanges.

Deep Capture, tells it all.

That was the whole objective of the MERS (Mortgage Electronic Recording System). To avoid the actual paperwork.

“Tough shit.” — Senator Bunning (R-Kentucky)

Ok . . . but what’s to prevent student loans from becoming (or already are) gamed in any myriad of ways that the rest of our finance system has gamed other components? That would be my point, property secured or not.

The value of companies net worth was gamed, and sold and bundled and over inflated and sold naked short, with phantom stocks to make and break companies and create riches for the gamers.

My point? Student loan debt is a bubble in waiting.

Gee, I’ll bet if ACORN were still around they would be disclosing this scam.

Hmmm.

Requiring the defendant to sue to get the court to do it’s job is bizarre.

That would apply in non judicial foreclosure states–I think. People, talk to a lawyer in YOUR state

LOL

Ouch!

I suspect that the reality is somewhere between fraudulent intent and inept implementation of a new technology. I know nothing about mortagages, but a fair bit about converting hardcopy accounting and documentation systems to electronic form. Electronic form changes none of the real requirements. In fact, it is advantageous precisely because it fulfills the old requirements more easily and cheaply–if done right. If you sincerely try to address the requirements that your paper systems were supposed to meet, you will design a decent electronic system.

Unfortunately, to a great number of the otherwise functionless middlemen that infest business processes in the US, change is either Efficiency–something that eliminates their livelihoods and needs to be resisted–or Opportunity. In the latter case, the introduction of information technology becomes an excuse for cutting corners and even, in extreme cases, cooking books. “It’s all so complicated” becomes the mantra. So who can blame anyone if a company or individuals within it just happen to derive an undisclosed advantage from the switch?

The claim for complexity is almost always a crock, in my opinion. I’ve always found that it is the older, non-technical, paper-era, near-retirement business people that master a new system most quickly–and point out its failings. The ones that have trouble are always the policy makers that actually had input into the requirements.

I don’t pretend to understand the mortgage fiasco as well as the knowledgeable folks on this thread do. But, if MERS was implemented in a way that created short-term advantages for the people that created it, to the detriment of borrowers and investors both, then I seriously doubt that that is an altogether innocent accident that can be blamed on the technology.

Reply to Cynthia @ 10 re: FL judges who reject defendants’ arguments. I googled ["rocket docket" "John Carlin"] to find articles about Lee County judge John Carlin, who only asks defendants two questions (Are you current on your mortgage and are you living in the home?) and gavels in favor of MERS or whoever purports to be legally entitled to foreclose. WSJ had an article about this judge, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123491755140004565.html?mod=todays_us_page_one

I happen to remember this because I had had a bad experience with Judge Carlin on another matter, in which he made a wrong ruling, later reversed himself and clearly had not taken the time to understand what the case was about. He misinterpreted a takings case as a dispute between neighbors.

It should be part of the foreclosure, if you are in a judicial foreclosure state. Proving they are the right party to foreclose because they have the right to collect the money is part of what they have to prove to foreclose. Part of your defense would be they can’t prove they have the legal right to collect the payments from you because they haven’t proven that there are any documents you’ve signed promising to pay them.

It’s really simple. Toyota can’t repo my car if it’s a Nissan.

Following your link to the Fraud Digest and then to the post demonstrating the fraudulent signatures (“Compare These Titles and Signatures”) :

how can you know the signatures are fraudulent without a pile of others to compare? It’s so easy to see that different people have signed docs using the same name for different assignments – but how do you prove it? Is there an online bank somewhere that can be viewed for comparison?

And then how do you prove to a judge that yours is fraudulent (or raise the question so that the judge makes the “bank” prove the signature is valid)?

I am a practicing attorney in Orlando. That is absolutely correct re the judges. Judges in Florida are doing 90-150 of these a day, all based on fraudulent docs that they could care less about. The Judges generally are general practitioners who last week were hearing criminal cases or divorce cases and this week they are hearing foreclosures which they know little about and want to hear even less about. Defenses are being raised and they are falling on deaf ears.
Also, the banks will use every trick in the book to avoid producing the docs in discovery.

If you are in foreclosure, and have been sued you have a right to discovery of the documents. You could also bring a counterclaim for fraud within the foreclosure.

I share the same theory. I think these document comapanies sold the banks on this tech system, implemented it poorly and now that they have found the failuer, all sorts of paniced people are doing stupid things

like CREATING missing paperwork

to cover up the fact that the mishandling of the paperwork likely means that they failed to perfect an interst in the real estate and the mortgage debt is not actually seured by the property and foreclosure can’t happen.

Unless the naive homeowne is unaware of this possible defense.

Not every mortgage is going to have this problem. But, hell, if somebody is trying to take you house away, it’s prudent to find out

I am often surprised at how many judges don’t seem to “get” the concept of standing.

It maybe that they spent their early careers doing criminal work where standing is not an issue, and so, never develpoed that part of their game beyond the day and half it was discussed in law school.

If you do a lot of civil work, especially contracts work, you get a much deeper understanding of standing.

It’s not the signatures that are relevant (though some appear to my layman’s eyes as written by different people)

It’s the names and titles. How can the same person simultaneously be a VP of a half dozen different entities? We’rre not talking about shell or papers corporations (where, yes, you could hold a bunch of titles b/c you aren’t actually doing much work)

We are talking about major banks, where being a VP would be a full time job.

I wonder why FLA is like that. In NYS, when they created these new foreclosure parts, the judges really seem to be trying to learn this stuff and get it right. The bankruptcy judges even did this amazing CLE program with HAMP/HARP folks from Fannie and Freddie and even an owner’s rights person from South Brooklyn Law Project and live streamd it into courthouses all over the state.

Then, a couple weeks later, they did it again for practitioners, so they would be clued in to defenses.

I went. It was astounding. I can’t remeber the last time the learning curve was so steep in a CLE course.

My point is. NYS really seems to be trying to “get this right” which is ironic since we are the state most dependent on the success of banking.

It may also be why you are seeing so many decisions coming out od NYS in favor of homeowners, some even cancelling mortgages outright.

The answer, I hope, is to raise these issues in apublic way and educate the national judiciary about the systemic problems.

You don’t need a good expert — you just need a magnifying glass. In order to deter and track forgery of currency, all color printers and copiers sold in the US are required to add a pattern of microscopic yellow dots to each page printed. This pattern is unique to each individual printer.

got a link to photo of such dots? I would love to see what you are talking about

This publication had a couple of articles last week. One dealing with LPS (story 2)and another dealing with Florida legislature attempt to pass fast track foreclosure provisions (story 3).

http://jacksonville.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2010/04/05/story2.html

Freddie Mac, Wells Fargo, and foreclosure lawyers are engaged in foreclosure frauds, extortion, as well as fraud upon the IRS. (hyperlink below for explicit details.) *This is what happened to me; however fraudulent bankruptcy court “lift stay” motions and foreclosure fraud filed by Louisiana lawyers are the norm!

Foreclosure mill lawyer filed a foreclosure case in the name of an entity which did not own my mortgage note. I filed court proceedings to challenge my home being taken by use of an identity of a defunct mortgage lender. In the process of that challenge, an AFFIDAVIT was entered into federal court records sworn to by the “successor” mortgage company (yet, the bogus foreclosure culminated). During litigations, most egregious and appalling things happened to me from courtroom judges and teams of Freddie Mac and Wells Fargo lawyers.

The salient things about New Orleans false foreclosures, is that false bankruptcy (“Lift Stay) and foreclosure pleading are deliberately false; Freddie Mac and Wells Fargo knowingly collude with foreclosure mills; neighborhood blights due to repeated ‘flipping;’ and filings of false IRS form 1099-A is common. Also, not only is the outcome illegal loss of one’s home, black listing from employment, humiliating invasions of privacy, persecutions, and more become afflicted on people who refuse to relent and cooperate with unlawful repossessions of their homes. There are many other documents, transcript excerpts, and pleadings posted on my website. See the entire facts @ http://www.lawgrace.org/2010/04/07/comments-foreclosure-on-louisiana-judge-reginald-badeaux-home-us-attorney-jim-letten-freddie-mac-wells-fargo-frauds-collusion-etc/. Here is a direct quote overview found at the above-referred link:

“. . . July 20, 2004 Affidavit. It was filed by GE Mortgage Services, LLC, the “successor in interest” to GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. This Affidavit proves Freddie Mac COULD NOT possibly have [lawfully] bought the Lurline Street property in July 2005 from defunct GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc; therefore, the Freddie Mac eviction of the occupants on August 25, 2005, was not lawful. The Affidavit also proves debt collector Hershel Adcock’s “SIMULATED” May 19, 2005 foreclosure auction of Lurline Street, accomplished via use of non-existent GE Capital’s identity, was absolute fraud! The affidavit effectively proves that: (1) Had a lawful foreclosure been in the first place filed, the successful bidder at Adcock’s auction could not have been defunct GE Capital, but the property deed that Adcock later recorded would have been in the name of GE Mortgage Services, LLC –if the foreclosure was in the first lawful, which it could NEVER be; and (2) it demonstrates that –because in Louisiana, foreclosure cases lists the collector’s name as the plaintiff, Adcock was able to himself bid on the property since no one was present except him, and then flip it to Freddie Mac. (3) The Affidavit also exposes the glaring LACK OF PURSUIT or CLAIMS for any legal rights successor, GE Mortgage Services, LLC might have had –in light of its attested Affidavit that it became the succeeding owner of the note for the Lurline property. (However, THERE DOES NOT EXIST AN ENFORCEABLE PROMISSORY NOTE for 4968 Lurline Street, due to the fact that Wells Fargo deliberately prepared a bogus, false loan modification document in the name of a non-owner of that Lurline mortgage loan!) *Federal law does require joinder of indispensable parties, such a “successor” to lawsuits. (4) Even further, the affidavit evidences impossible and fraudulent it was for Wells Fargo to file with the IRS a form 1099-A on which Wells Fargo falsely informed the IRS that Wells Fargo “acquired” the Lurline Street property on May 19, 2005. (5) Finally, if Wells Fargo was not intentionally committing Internal Revenue fraud and complicit in Adcock’s practice of real estate frauds, why did Adcock have the property deed recorded in the name of non-existent GE Capital Mortgage Services –and why was Freddie Mac’s purported July 2005 purchase of the Lurline property (and which Freddie Mac evicted the Lurline occupants) not purchased from Wells Fargo? The New Orleans Times Picayune newspaper real estate transfers section, reported that Freddie Mac paid an amount of over $86,000.00 to (defunct), GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., for the purchase of the Lurline Street property! HOWEVER, THE FACTS POINT TO ADCOCK AS BEING THE MOST LIKELY RECIPIENT OF THAT MONEY, while Wells Fargo got its portion of money from filing Wells Fargo’s false form 1099-A, so as to receive tax write-offs and credits from the IRS.

ANY REPRESENTATION to Wall Street Investors by FREDDIE MAC and by WELLS FARGO that $$$$$$$$$ billion dollar losses are due to people defaulting on their mortgages should be weighed against the fact that in Louisiana, Freddie Mac and Wells Fargo needlessly pays to DEBT COLLECTION firms outrageous litigation costs for corporate lawyers to outmaneuver –and even persecute people who file court proceedings in opposition to contrary-to-law, as well as fraudulent foreclosures.