65 SIGNS THAT YOUR MORTGAGE LOAN & FORECLOSURE DOCUMENTS COULD BE FRAUDULENT

Here are a few signs of mortgage fraud to look for when considering foreclosure defense factics:

1.     The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is assigned from the Originator directly to the Trustee for the Securitized Trust.

2.     The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is assigned months and sometimes years after the date of the origination of the underlying mortgage note.

3.     The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is assigned from the initial aggregator directly to the Securitized Trust with no assignments to the Depositor or the Sponsor for the Trust.

4.     The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is executed, dated or assigned in a manner inconsistent with the mandatory governing rules of Section 2.01 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

5.     The assignment of the Mortgage or Deed of Trust is executed by a legal entity that was no longer in existence on the date the document was executed.

6.     The assignment of the mortgage or Deed of Trust is executed by an entity whose name is different than the entity named in the original document (i.e., National City Bank Corporation in lieu of ABC Corporation as a division of National City Bank).

7.     The assignment was executed by a party pursuant to a Power of Attorney but no Power of Attorney is attached to the instrument or filed with the instrument or otherwise recorded with local land registry.

8.     The mortgage note is allegedly transferred in a single document along with the Mortgage or Deed of Trust (i.e., “Assignment of the Note and Mortgage”).  You cannot “assign” a mortgage note.  You can only “negotiate” a mortgage note under Article 3 of the UCC.

9.     The assignment is executed by a party who claims to be an “attorney in fact” for the assignor.

10.    The assignment is notarized by a notary in Dakota County, Minnesota.

11.    The assignment is notarized by a notary in Hennepin County, Minnesota.

12.    The assignment is notarized by a notary in Duval County, Florida.

13.    The assignment is executed by an officer or secretary of MERS.

14.    The assignment is notarized by a secretary or paralegal employed by the attorney for the mortgage servicer.

15.    The assignment is executed or notarized by an employee of MR Default Services, Promiss Solutions LLC, National Default Exchange, LP, LOGS Financial Services, or some similar third-party.

16.    The endorsement on the note is actually on an allonge affixed to the note.  In most states, an allonge cannot be used if there is a sufficient amount of room at the “foot” or the “bottom” of the original note for the endorsement.

17.    The allonge is not “permanently” affixed to the original note.  The term permanent excludes the use of staples and tape and as a result you must use a sold fastener such as glue.  Allonges are commonly referred to “in the business” as “tear-off fraud papers.”

18.    The note proffered in evidence is not the original but a copy of the “certified copy” provided to the debtors at the closing.

19.    The note is endorsed in blank with no transfer and delivery receipts.  It is fine to endorse a note in blank, in which case it becomes “bearer” paper under the UCC.  However, in order to prove a true sale from the Sponsor to the Depositor you must have written delivery and transfer receipts and proof of pay outs and pay in transactions.

20.    The note proffered in evidence is not endorsed at the foot of the note or on an affixed allonge.

21.    The assignment of the mortgage or deed of trust post-dates the filing of the court pleading.

22.    The assignment of the mortgage or deed of trust is executed after the filing of the court pleadings but claims to be “legally effective” before the filing.  For example, the deed of trust is assigned on June 1, 2009, with an effective date of May 1, 2007.

23.    The parties who executed the assignment and who notarized the signature are in fact the same parties.

24.    The signor states that he or she is an “agent” for the executing entity.

25.    The signor states that he or she is an “attorney in fact” for the executing entity.

26.    The signor states that he or she is an employee of the executing entity but claims to have custody and control of the records of the entity.

27.    The signor of the document makes statements about the status of the mortgage debt based on his or her review of the “records of the plaintiff” or the “records of the moving party.”

28.    The proponent of the original note files an Affidavit of Lost Note.

29.    The signor claims that the allegations in the court pleading are correct but the assignment of the mortgage and/or delivery and transfer of the note occurs after the law suit or the motion for relief from stay was filed.

30.    One or more of the operative documents in the case is signed by one of the attorneys for the mortgage servicer.

31.    The default payment history filed in the case is prepared by the attorney for the mortgage servicer or a member of his or her staff.

32.    The affidavit filed in support of legal fees is not signed by an attorney with the firm involved in the case.

33.    The name of one or more of the signors is stamped on the document.

34.    The document is a form with standard “fill-in-the-blanks” for names and amounts.

35.    The signature of one or more parties on the document is not legible and looks like something a three year old might have done.

36.    The document is dated and signed years before the document is actually filed with the register of real estate documents or deeds or mortgages.

37.    The proffered document has the word C O P Y stamped on or embedded in the document.

38.    The document is executed by a notary in Denton County, Texas.

39.    The document is executed by a notary in Collin County, Texas.

40.    The document includes a legend “Hold for” a named law firm after recording.

41.    The document was drafted by a law firm representing the mortgage servicer in the pending case.

42.    The document includes any type of bar code that was not added by the local register or filing clerk for such instruments.

43.    The document includes a reference to an “instrument number.”

44.    The document includes a reference to a “form number.”

45.    The document does not include any reference to a Master Document Custodian.

46.    The document is not authenticated by any officer or authorized agent of a Master Document Custodian.

47.    The paragraph numbers on the document are not consistent (the last paragraph on page one is 7 and the first paragraph on page two starts with number 9).

48.    The endorsement of the note is not at the “foot” or “bottom” of the last page of the note.  For example, a few states allow an endorsement on the back of the last page of the note but the majority requires it at the foot of the note.

49.    The document purports to assign the mortgage or the deed of trust to the Trustee for the Securitized Trust before the Trust was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  This type of registration is normally referred to as a “shelf registration.”

50.    The document purports to transfer the note to the Trustee for the Securitized Trust before the date the Trust provides for the origination date of instruments in the Trust.  The Prospectus, the Prospectus Supplement and the Pooling and Servicing Agreement will clearly state that the pool of notes includes those originated between date X and date Y.

51.    The document purports to transfer the note to the Trustee for the Securitized Trust after the cut-off date for the creating of such instruments for the Trust.

52.    The origination date on the mortgage note is not within the origination and cut-off dates provided for the by terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

53.    The “Affidavit of a Lost Note” is not filed by the Master Document Custodian for the Trust but by the Servicer or some other third-party.

54.    The document is signed by a “bank officer” without any designation of the office held by the said officer.

55.    The affidavit includes the following language on the bottom of each page:  “This is an attempt to collect a debt.  Any information obtained will be used for that purpose.”

56.    The document is signed by a person who identifies himself or herself as a “media supervisor” for the proponent.

57.    The document is signed by a person who identifies himself or herself as a “media coordinator” for the proponent.

58.    The document is signed by a person who identifies himself or herself as a “legal coordinator” for the movant.

59.    The date of the signature on the document and the date the signature was notarized are not the same.

60.    The parties who signed the assignment and who notarized the signature are located in different states or counties.

61.    The transferor and the transferee have the same physical address including the same street and post office box numbers.

62.    The assignor and the assignee have the same physical address including the same street and post office box numbers.

63.    The signor of the document states that he or she is acting “solely as nominee” for some other party.

64.    The document refers to a power of attorney but no power of attorney is attached.

65.    The document bears the following legend:  “This is not a certified copy.”

Why You Should Never Make an Admission to a Contract of Indebtedness

We understand the operating documents of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and if the security evidence by the mortgage security instrument, conveyed with the tangible note negotiation, before the cut off data of the REMIC.

We are absolutely familiar with how you would sit down and break down a true sale from party A from party B to convey the security and to maintain the fiduciary duty under the Common Law Deed of Trust to release and reconvey, release and reconvey, to maintain clear and marketable title.

So, we know the foundation under the UCC for that.

Then, we also understand the underlying arguments that the banks and their attorneys use against people making securitization foreclosure defence arguments, which may have done a proper statement of fact as to what’s required to accomplish a true sale between all these parties and maintain perfection over the lien.

However the banks and their attorneys are going to succeed by not having a Chain of Title, by stating that they negotiated the note in Bearer Form under Article UCC 3205 Sub section B with no payee named as a bearer instrument.

This essentially gives them a purported temporary perfection of the original holder, while they physically transfer the instrument, by daisy chain, which doesn’t require for them to maintain a Chain of Title, until the instrument is specially endorsed.

This is how the banks and their attorneys beat almost everybody from New York to California on standing, and whether or not they had a secured interest over the lien; because nobody has a the way to argue against whether or not they made the instrument of bearer paper and physically negotiated it, because they weren’t required to maintain a Chain of Title in that aspect.

So that’s how the banks and their attorneys are able to win nine times out of ten. Because what they’re saying is that in the negotiation under 3205 B, the security followed the note, whenever the custodian of record received the instrument prior to the cut-off date, making the note and the security securing trust property before the cut-off date.

That’s how the banks and their attorneys are able to beat you.

So let’s reverse engineer this, let’s take that note all the way back to the closing, and reverse the whole concept and transaction.

What you have to be able to show is that you have one purported transaction, concealing the realistic transaction.

Did the lien’s beneficial interest maintain perfection, and was it therefore eligible to be negotiated with the note in that capacity, as statutorily required?

However what that would require that you were the actual creditor and that you actually made that note as a maker issuer, for the purposes of being the beneficiary of the debt that was created.

This is what the banks and their attorneys want you to believe in the matter of equity:

1. That your signature was as a maker issuer and therefore created value to the instrument
2. You negotiated with the party that you sat down at closing with
3. They accepted the instrument by negotiation
4. They were a federal reserved depository institution that could accept article three instruments by deposit
5. They gave you consideration in the form of cash, not Ultra Vires, for your promise to pay instrument executing an underlying indebtedness contract

Well in an IRC 1031 Like Kind Exchange, Table Funded Securitized Mortgage Loan Transaction that didn’t happen. That did not happen; that negotiation, acceptance and consideration is not what a table funded securitization transaction is!

So the money is not created from your signature, negotiated and then the note negotiated between state to state physically, that doesn’t happen in a table funded transaction.  Rather it’s in direct reverse engineer – the money was created from the sale of the certificates and the special deposit, special purpose vehicle on Wall Street.

They take the certificate holders funds to the securities to special deposit the pool of assets.  That pool of assets is used in the SPV alternative investment opportunity through the warehouse line of credit, and that’s what the sponsor bank is using as the table funding credit in the transaction itself.

So yes, we would have some arguments like robo-signing and the improper negotiation, transfer, and delivery of the mortgage loan contract all the way through the securitization scheme, as part of the material defects found in the transactional scheme itself – but what we don’t want to do is provide any language as an admission to you being the account debtor.

You also want to make sure you understand what is meant by using terms like the “alleged debt”, because you’re going to piss the Judge off, really badly; a lot of people do it. Because, they don’t know how to speak to the transaction as it relates to what that means.

So let me give you the perspective that the Judge is going to have. The Judge is only looking at the intent of the contract. So all the little details, the semantics of this right now, the first thing the Judge is going to do, is look at it from a cursory equity standpoint.

Q:  Did you intend to get a home

A:  Yes

Q:  Are you in a home?

A: Yes

Q:  Okay, so you’re in the collateral.

A:  Yes

Q:  Okay and did you intend whenever you went to go get the home to get an obligation or a loan associated to that.

A:  Yes

Okay, yes that’s obvious or else you wouldn’t be in the collateral

Q:  Okay so you’re in the collateral – an obligation exists – and you also pledged a lien to encumber your property to secure that obligation, so that if you couldn’t perform on the contractual payment obligation the holder of the obligation would have the lien to enforce, do a foreclosure sale to enforce an ultimate means of collection.

A: Yes.

Okay.  So just looking at the intent of the contract, you are in the collateral, you know that you signed something at the closing- there’s an obligation – and it’s in default.

The institutions claiming to be the holder of that obligation and to be the secured party of record via an assignment of the security instrument perfected in public record.

Are there any other parties that are involved in this transaction?

No!

And if some other financial institution was holding an obligation and saw that deed of trust or signed with a deed of trust recorded on public record, they would immediately file to acquire the title and they would be there defending their right to the obligation and the collateral itself.

So because there’s no other financial institution showing up claiming to be the holder and to having a subsequent assignment of deed of trust or mortgage recorded for enforcing through a foreclosure action – than nine times out of ten – the Judge is going to give the party holding the obligation the benefit of the doubt as a matter of the intent of the contract.

So, in terms of the intent of the contract, this is where it becomes so viable for you to understand, what your capacity into the transaction is.

When the judge ask you: “Did you sign the note – in the effort to get the collateral?”

Your answer is “Yes.”  – But you need to be able to specify the answer to yes as “well yes your honour but I’m not the account debtor.  I signed into this transaction as an accommodation party or guarantor. The party that I signed as a guarantor for, made available the obligation through a securitization transaction without my knowledge and purportedly negotiated the security evidence by the deed of trust/mortgage lien that I pledged to them, uniquely, to secure these receivables in this transaction as well. 

What I need to know your honour is does my lien secure the tangible contractual obligation or does it secure the receivables?”

The answer to the receivables is no. You cannot attach article 9 to the UCC receivables (securities) to enforce a lien on real property. A lien on real property under revised article nine is not secured by a lien on real property, so article nine does not fit the common law argument that the transfer of an obligation carries the beneficial interest of the lien and the lien itself.

Here is the lie that the banks almost always defeat homeowners with.

“Here’s a copy of the note your honour, the security follows the obligation we all know that.”

Yes, that’s accurate, under common law and U.S. Supreme Court. Carpenter v. Longan (1872) the note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.

Furthermore under revised article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) the banks do not necessarily have to record each transfer of the mortgage loan contract in public records; all they have to do is, in essence, be in possession of the note and they can claim rights to enforce it.

Therefore you need to be able to be able to explain (and prove) how your capacity is to the obligation. “Your honour I am not the account debtor.  I was a guarantor to this party.  I am not a guarantor to everybody else that claims to be the holder of the obligation”

And it’s their capacity of an accommodated party to the certificate holders on Wall Street.  They’re not the real creditors.  Their job is to put the certificate holders into funds associated to your payment string.

All of this is predicated on laying the proper order of operations, in line with statutory capacities, that clearly part and parcel and separate the root question of: Does revised article nine and liens on real property secured defaulted receivables in a securitization transaction?

That’s your root question.

You just have to be able to have it all put in the proper sequence in statutory capacities, as it relates to your state, and what took place in order to defend the lien itself the property.

How have you been harmed?

In pre-foreclosure it’s not so much that you’ve actually been harmed, it’s whether or not they have clean hands in the transaction.  So this, at its root is an Equitable Estoppel issue. In the like kind exchange transactional scheme there is a senior secured party and a junior secured party – the originator of the loan (named on the note as the lender) is the senior secured party, and the trustee for the REMIC trust is the junior secured party.

But it’s one transactional scheme, its one organism, so you have to be able to show that they – in the race of diligence – that the junior secured party made sure that the originator recorded that underlying security of trust, so they could perform the rest of the transaction.  But ten years later upon default of the receivables, to cause an assignment of the beneficial interest of evidence about your underlying security instrument, that security instrument doesn’t maintain perfection from now, until infinity. You can lose perfection over that lien. 

So, having the proper capacity, order of operations, and then statement of facts of how they lost perfection, and to show that it is inequitable for the holder of the receivables to attempt to cause an assignment of the underlying security instrument, because they were only negotiated the receivables, with unclean hands. That’s what you have to show that they don’t have an equitable claim to.

Hypothecation is a third party pledging collateral on your behalf. So, let’s say for instance, if you pledged the real property to the originator party on the ten thirty one exchange transaction scheme you specifically gave legal title to that party. Not to the trustee under that instrument, and the beneficiary of the security instrument. The beneficiary of the security instrument then in turn pledged a separate and subsequent value – which is the proceeds of the real property.

Let me give you an example.  Consider a wheat field. The land is the real property, but the Wheat and the Harvest are the proceeds of the real property.

In this securitization transaction the original secured party is granting the proceeds, the actual required collateral to the real property and hypothecating that proceed as the payment intangible, which is the transferable record on the obligation.

So, you have to be able to show that it’s under revised article nine; it does not apply to liens on real property.  It may apply to title loans, student loans, and unsecured obligations, but it does not apply to liens on real property.

Remember, it’s either you sold the contract in its entirety to a successor and interest through a true sale; or you sold the underlying tangible value of the contract.

Remember when people paid off their loans and they received their notes and their deed back, and they would have deed burning parties?

That doesn’t happen anymore because that transactional scheme where that was your note, that you made and negotiated with a bank that could accept it, deposit it, and give you real money for a loan so you could purchase the property.  That’s the savings and loan model.

In that transaction the bank you contracted with actually risked giving you real money, and was going to hold that thirty year instrument until its full rate of return.  Its portfolio division wanted to buy that obligation and they underwrote you as your credit worthiness and they gave you the loan.  You had skin in the game, you qualified financially and they were willing to take a risk on you.  That was a real contract between you and the bank.

But what happened with the securitization bubble is they lifted the Glass–Steagall Act and the Gramm Bliley Leach Act and they made way for this transactional scheme were they could divert the risk of creating the money, which was done by lying and cheating the certificate holders through a perspective supplement which was pre-fabricated on the yield spread of those securities, under the nineteen thirty three, thirty four Security and Exchange act.

So they went to Standards & Poor’s and they got all those credit enhancements and they pre-sold those securities. Well that’s what the special deposit is for the REMIC trust, the trust vehicle; the special purpose vehicle. So, through special deposit, they generated those funds with the sale of the securities, that’s what makes the credit swaps available for the sponsor bank, to work with the originator to the table fund transaction.

Once you’re able to understand the blue print of the transaction and then you set the order of operations in place, and then you couch the interested parties, and then couch their capacity, and then what are they negotiating and what’s its statutory intangible interest, and what governs that, and once you set the mouse trap in place, and it can follow the order of operation it’s not that complicated.

To get to the root question you just have to be able to see all of that and to be able to understand the root question.

The root question is “in what capacity did you sign the note (as maker/issuer) or as an (accommodation party/guarantor)?

Get all your questions answered and get the help you need to get the justice you deserve at: www.fraudstoppers.org/pma

70 MILLION MORTGAGES MAYBE LEGALLY VOID!

DO YOU HAVE ONE OF THEM?

BANKS AND WALL STREET TRUSTS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WRONGFUL ASSIGNMENT OF DEEDS OF TRUST!

General Overview: Upwards of 70 million mortgage-loan-contracts are legally faulty. It has now been determined that many of the entities attempting to foreclose on homes do not hold legal title to do so.

If you suspect that you may have been wrongfully foreclosed upon, or are currently facing foreclosure, we recommend that you read and research the Glaski v. Bank of America case and the CA Supreme Court Case Yvanova.

In 2006 the California Supreme Court ruled in Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corporation (Case No. S218973, Cal. Sup. Ct. February 18, 2016) homeowners have standing to challenge a note assignment in an action for wrongful foreclosure on the grounds that the assignment is void.

What does Glaski v. Bank of America mean to you?

The Glaski decision presents the idea that if some entity wants to collect a debt or foreclose on your property, they must first own the debt. Furthermore, if that entity is claiming ownership by way of an Assignment, it must prove that Assignment is valid.

“This is one of the most significant cases in Calif. Real Estate Law in the last fifty years,” explained Stephen J. Foondos, managing partner of United Law Center. “Unlike the myriad weak modification programs that gave little or nothing to a relatively small number of homeowners, the Glaski decision offers real financial relief to all who were (wrongfully) foreclosed upon.”

In the Glaski case, Mr. Glaski was foreclosed on and evicted. He sued for wrongful foreclosure claiming the entity that foreclosed was not the proper party because they did not own his promissory note. Glaski alleged that days after he signed his mortgage with his bank, the bank assigned his note to a securitized “Wall Street” trust and that the Assignment document was not filed timely as required under the state laws in which it was created.

Since the Assignment of Mr. Glaski’s note to the securitized trust was invalid, the trust did not own his note and therefore could not foreclosure, and hence the foreclosure was wrongful. The Court of Appeals agreed. (Notably, if the trust never owned the note then it never had the right to collect any of his mortgage payments—which means Glaski [and any other Plaintiffs] can sue for reimbursement of those payments too)!

Although the banks tired to appeal the Glaski decision, it did not work. Recently the California Supreme Court upheld the Glaski decision. This Supreme Court Decision could help bring down the house or cards (and deceit) that the banks have created and have been fighting hard to maintain.

All homeowners who lost their properties to foreclosure, or are currently in the foreclosure process, are encouraged to review their original loan paperwork for signs of a fraudulent foreclosure. “There are tell-tale signs on your original loan paperwork that can indicate an improper handling of your Deed of Trust.

What bank did you originally sign with? Major Banks securitized nearly 90% of all their loans; nearly all failed to properly assign them. These include, but are not limited, to:

• Countrywide Home Loans
• JPMorgan Chase
• Bank of America
• Wells Fargo
• Washington Mutual

What was the date of your Assignment of Deed of Trust? Look to see if an Assignment of Deed of Trust was filed. If so, your lender does not likely own your note. If the recording date of the Assignment is near the time of foreclosure, then that entity had no legal right to foreclose. And if that’s the case you need to file suit against them because they are attempting to foreclose on your home ILLEGALLY!

Here is one major sign of fraud to look for: Seeing the term MERS (The Mortgage Electronic Registration System) on your loan documents: Deed of Trust, Notice of Default, and Notice of Trustee Sale.

What is MERS? MERS is the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems it was created by banks in order to “streamline” the warehousing of loans and mortgage documents. Basically MERS is a front organization that was created to defraud homeowners and government agencies. It pretends to hold your note, but in fact MERS actually holds nothing!

Banks set up MERS in the late 1990s to help speed the process of packaging loans into mortgage-backed bonds by easing the process of transferring mortgages from one party to another. But ever since the housing crash, MERS has been besieged by litigation from state attorneys general, local government officials and homeowners who have challenged the company’s authority to pursue foreclosure actions. Recently there have been many court decisions delivering death blows to MERS and you may be able to take advantage of this FACT.

For example the Washington State Supreme Court dealt a death blow to MERS: “The highest court in the state of Washington recently ruled that a company that has foreclosed on millions of mortgages nationwide can be sued for fraud, a decision that could cause a new round of trouble for the nation’s banks.

The ruling is one of the first to allow consumers to seek damages from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, a company set up by the nation’s major banks, if they can prove they were harmed. Legal experts said this decision from the Washington Supreme Court could become a precedent for courts in other states. The case also endorsed the view of other state courts that MERS does not have the legal authority to foreclose on a home.

“This is a body blow,” said consumer law attorney Ira Rheingold. “Ultimately the MERS business model cannot work and should not work and needs to be changed.” A spokeswoman for MERS said the company is its role in the financial system will withstand legal challenges. The Washington Supreme Court held that MERS’ business practices had the “capacity to deceive” a substantial portion of the public because MERS claimed it was the beneficiary of the mortgage when it was not!

This finding means that in actions where a bank used MERS to foreclose, the consumer can sue it for fraud. If the foreclosure can be challenged, MERS’ involvement would make repossession more complicated. On top of that, virtually any foreclosed homeowner in the state in the past 15 years who feels they have been harmed in some way could file a consumer fraud suit.

Currently there is an estimated 70,000,000 mortgages that MERS claims to hold. This represents about 60% of the residential real estate in the United States of America. So chances are your mortgage and loan has been compromised. You can learn more about MERS, and search the MERS database to see if your mortgage loan is a MERS loan by clicking here.

Here are 65 more signs of fraud you can look for. If you see any of these signs we recommend that you contact us right away because you may have legal standing to sue your lender, or current loan servicer, for mortgage and/or foreclosure fraud.

If you are missing copies of your mortgage loan documents you may be able to can get free online copies by clicking here.

Now is the perfect time to sue the banks over mortgage and foreclosure fraud because the legal tide is beginning to turn, and homeowners are starting to win. You can read the Yale Law Journal Review paper entitled “In Defense of Free Houses” for proof.

Kimberly L. Thomas (Baltimore MD) sued Wells Fargo in Montgomery County Circuit Court for wrongful foreclosure and her six-member federal jury convicted Wells Fargo of fraud, negligence and other charges for inflating Thomas’ income and assets on her mortgage application, and locking her into a bigger loan than she had applied for — one she couldn’t afford. She was awarded $250,000 in special damages, plus another one million dollars in punitive damages! You can read her case by clicking here.

David and Crystal Holm also sued Wells Fargo for wrongful foreclosure and quiet title and were awarded $2,959,123.00 in financial damages and clear and free title to their home. You can read about their case by clicking here.

IF you have a MERS mortgage, or you feel that you have been harmed by your lender, we recommend that you take immediate action and register for a Free Mortgage Fraud Analysis to determine if you have legal standing to sue your lender, or current loan servicer for mortgage fraud.

Remember the banks business model is to foreclose on homeowners. Securitization is the reason that banks want to foreclose on homeowners.  When a bank assigns the risk of a loan to investors (certificate holders) of a Real Estate Investment Conduit Trust (SPV), the “bank” is no longer a traditional bank that gets the benefit of mortgage payments.

Mortgage banks give as few modifications as possible and comply minimally with statutes put in place to protect borrowers, all while employing tricks to “cash in” on homeowners’ defaults, pushing them to foreclosure.

Banks benefit from foreclosures more than loan modifications because of something called “creaming the debt.”  If the Banks modify the loan, their penalties and fees might not get paid to them.  When they foreclose, they get their penalties first, before the investors– which is the “creaming.” The mortgage banks make more money from foreclosure than actually servicing the homeowner’s payment.

When foreclosure becomes a possibility, like when a borrower misses a payment or asks for a modification, the banks seize the opportunity for increased profit by foreclosure. Foreclosure is clearly the fattest pot of gold possible and it’s for this reason foreclosure is the bank’s primary goal.

The banks take the risk of litigation because few people sue, but getting legal information as soon as possible can make the difference between homeowners asserting their rights, or losing their homes while being bulldozed by the bank.

Bank Trick #1:  Refusing Payments

The bank refuses the check a homeowner sends in.

The bank may offer a reason (for example, there’s a mistake on the account) or it might offer no explanation at all.  The bank may even offer the homeowner a loan modification.  The bank does this to delay the homeowner from immediately contacting an attorney to pursue a breach of contract claim.

Alternately, the bank may take trial payments in an effort to further delay the homeowner until the arrears (also known as the forbearance)  becomes so great that the homeowner is ineligible for a loan modification or unable to repay the debt. Eventually, the servicer combines this trick with other tricks, such as changing servicers, to draw the homeowner further into default.

Bank Trick #2:  Switching Services during Modification

A homeowner gets a loan modification with one servicer and makes trial payments.  The servicer advises the homeowner that it is switching servicing rights to another servicer.

The new servicer claims to know nothing about the modification and delays the homeowner for months waiting to get the relevant “paperwork.”  No matter how many times the homeowner sends proof of the modification, the new servicer refuses to honor it.  It is a violation of California law to not honor a modification from a prior servicer but servicers know that most people will not pursue litigation.

Bank Trick #3:  Breaching a Modification Contract

The homeowner gets a loan modification that includes a balloon payment of, for example, $50,000 after 20 years.  After paying on this loan modification for a year and a half, the homeowner gets a new modification in the mail from the same servicer with a balloon payment of $150,000.  No matter how many times the borrower calls the servicer, or tries to forward the existing modification, the agent will respond with a fixed script that does not acknowledge the prior modification but only talks about the new one.

The confused borrower will feel like he or she is talking to a robot (on a recorded line, being monitored by a supervisor).  Eventually, if the borrower does not sign and execute the new modification, the bank will begin to refuse their payments on the old modification.

The servicer will also create a paper trail that tells a different story than what is actually happening.  If the bank is trying to stick a borrower with a new modification, the paper trail will show the borrower is refusing the modification and mention nothing about the old one. Eventually, the servicer will stop accepting payments unless the homeowner acquiesces to the new modification.

Bank Trick #4:  Extra Fees & Escrow Accounts

The homeowner receives a bill for extra fees out of nowhere so that the mortgage payment becomes something the homeowner suddenly can’t afford.  The servicer refuses to accept any “partial payment.”  After that, the bank continues adding on fees each month, increasing the amount the borrower has to pay to reinstate. They may offer the homeowner a loan modification as a distraction to trick the homeowner into a longer default.  Because the borrower thinks they are getting a modification, they will spend the money they would have put towards their mortgage and be unprepared to pay their arrears if the modification falls through, as it most likely will. The servicer does all this while telling the borrower they are there to help.

The servicer may pay homeowner taxes early and then accuse the homeowner of not paying them.  The servicer may point to a clause in the mortgage that says if the homeowner doesn’t pay the taxes, they can raise the interest rate. They may begin charging the homeowner for forced place insurance at a high rate even though the homeowner already has insurance. This is something the homeowner only finds out after-the-fact when trying to pay property taxes.

Bank Trick #5:  False Notices

In a non-judicial foreclosure state, such as California, foreclosure is done by recorded notice.  The Notice of Default states the amount of arrears that a homeowner must pay back to reinstate the loan.

Servicers uniformly overstate this amount by up to $20,000, which serves two purposes: (1) It scares borrowers with an inflated amount of arrears that they believe they can’t cure; and (2) It creates a paper trail for the bank so they can claim more money from investors.

Bank Trick #6:  Multiple Modifications and Dual Tracking

The bank must respond to the loan modification application with a denial or approval within a definite period.  A denial must be in writing and must inform the borrower of the right to appeal.  The bank cannot “dual track” a borrower by posting Notices of Foreclosure and Trustee’s Sale while reviewing the borrower for a modification.

There are big penalties for “dual tracking” by the bank, but only if it is the borrower’s first time applying.  This is why a servicer will often deny a modification over the phone or encourage a borrower to apply again.  Once a borrower becomes a serial modifier, the bank can dual track the borrower all it wants without statutory penalties. And, it will.

You don’t have to let the banks get away with these tricks and scams! According to a government audit 83% of the mortgages contain legal violations, legal errors, contract breaches, appraisal fraud, mortgage fraud, and other legal issues that can be legally problematic for banks attempting to foreclose.

However, thanks to groundbreaking cases like the Glaski v. Bank of America case and the Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, case there is hope for homeowners who want to fight to save their homes from mortgage and foreclosure fraud.

The Glaski decision (California State Court) presents the idea that if some entity wants to collect a debt or foreclosure on your property, they must first legally own the debt. Furthermore, if that entity is claiming ownership by way of an Assignment, it must prove that Assignment is legally valid.

The Jesinoski decision (Federal Supreme Court) deals with a homeowner’s right to rescind (or cancel) the loan agreement, and stated that the loan is rescinded the moment the rescission letter is mailed! Furthermore if the lender wants to challenge the rescission it only has 20 days to do it!

The Supreme Court stated in Carpenter v. Longan that “the mortgage follows the note” and that the note and mortgage are inseparable because the assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while the assignment of the mortgage alone is a legal void!

Our research shows that the majority of Assignments are void; because  most pooling and servicing agreements are trust that are governed by New York law.  New York law says that if you are not punctilious in following the trust documents for a transfer, the transfer is void. It doesn’t matter if you intended it or not, it’s void.

That transfer is void even if the transfer would have otherwise been compliant with law. And if the transfer is void, that would mean that the trust do not own the mortgages; and therefore lacks standing to foreclose.

It’s axiomatic that in order to bring forth legal action, the plaintiff must have legal standing. Only the mortgagee has such standing. Thus various problems like false or faulty affidavits, as well as back dated mortgage assignments, and altered or wholly counterfeited notes, mortgages, and assignments all relates to the evidentiary need to prove standing.

I cannot decide for you the moral obligations you should pursue; but if a wrong has been committed against you (such as a clouded title or a fraud resulting from a mortgage loan) you have the duty as an American property owner to correct it. Filing a lawsuit (in my book) reflects one’s personal responsibility. Furthermore if you read your mortgage or deed of trust you agreed to defend the title to your property against any false or faulty liens or encumbrances.

If you have a broken chain of title, or cloud on title, it is your legal right and duty to file a quiet title lawsuit in order to obtain clear and equitable title to your home!

Register for a Free Mortgage Fraud Analysis and we will analyze your loan documents and conduct a free securitization search to determine if you have legal standing to sue your lender, or current loan servicer for financial compensation for fraud, clear and free title to your home, or both!

If we determine that your loan qualifies for a quiet title lawsuit we will provide you with a FREE TILA Rescission Letter that you can mail to your lender to immediately rescind (or cancel) your mortgage loan contract under the recent Federal Supreme Court case Jesinoski v. Countrywide.

In addition to this FREE TILA Rescission Letter we can also provide you with a court ready, turnkey, quiet title or wrongful foreclosure lawsuit that can help you save time and money (and increase your odds of success) suing for the legal remedy that the law entitles you to and that you deserve.

To register for your free mortgage fraud analysis click here: https://fraudstoppers.org/welcome/

Remember do NOT give up on your piece of the American Dream, because you may have legal remedy available. 

FRAUD STOPPERS Evaluation for Violations of “RESPA” The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) is a consumer protection statute, first passed in 1974. It requires lenders to give a good faith estimate (GFE) of all closing costs that borrowers must pay. It was designed to help borrowers from being forced to pay “hidden fees” at closing. Typical violations of RESPA include (1) Statutory Damages, (2) Attorney’s fees, and in many cases (3) Treble Damages [i.e., 3 times the amount.]

FRAUD STOPPERS Evaluation for Violations of “TILA” The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) requires lenders to disclose the terms of a loan, including the total amount of the loan, the annual interest rate, and the number, amount, and due dates of all payments necessary to repay the loan. The TILA also requires additional disclosures and places many restrictions on mortgages. The most often sought remedy under TILA is rescission of the loan.

FRAUD STOPPERS Evaluation for Violations of “FCRA” The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) was designed to prevent inaccurate or obsolete information from entering or remaining on a credit report. The law requires credit bureaus to adopt reasonable procedures for gathering, maintaining, and disseminating information. Commons remedies for violating FCRA are (1) statutory damages and (2) Attorney fees

FRAUD STOPPERS Evaluation for Violations of “ECOA” The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) was designed to ensure that all qualified people have access to credit and prohibits discrimination based on sex, marital status, age, race, national origin, or public assistance benefits received.

FRAUD STOPPERS Evaluation for Violations of “HOEPA” Home Ownership Equity Protection Act state and local high costs. Federal (HOEPA), state and local high-cost thresholds.

FRAUD STOPPERS compares the loan data collected during a forensic loan audit to the calculated high-cost thresholds as defined by the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA) and applicable state and local jurisdictions.

FRAUD STOPPERS Evaluation for Violations of “Underwriting Standards” The purpose of an underwriter is to determine whether the borrowers can qualify for a loan and if the borrowers can repay the loan. This determination of the ability to repay a loan is based upon employment and income in large measure, which is proved by getting pay stubs, 1040’s, W-2’s and a Verification of Employment and Income on the borrowers.

If an underwriter has evaluated the loan properly, then there should be no question of the ability of the borrower to repay the loan. Debt ratios will have been evaluated, credit reviewed, and a proper determination of risk made in relation to the loan amount. Approvals and denials would be made based upon a realistic likelihood of repayment.

The terms “abusive lending” or “predatory lending” are most frequently defined by reference to a variety of lending practices. Although it is generally necessary to consider the totality of the circumstances to assess whether a loan is predatory, a fundamental characteristic of predatory lending is the aggressive marketing of credit to prospective borrowers who simply cannot afford the credit on the terms being offered. While such disregard of basic principles of loan underwriting lies at the heart of predatory lending, a variety of other practices may also accompany the marketing of such credit.

Targeting

Targeting inappropriate or excessively expensive credit products to older borrowers, or to persons who are not financially sophisticated or who may be otherwise vulnerable to abusive practices, and to persons who could qualify for mainstream credit products and terms

Loan Flipping & Equity Stripping

Repeated refinancing of borrowers into loans that have no tangible benefit to the borrower. Can be the same lender or different ones. Loans and refinances whereby equity is removed from the home through repeated refinances, consolidation of short-term debt into long term debt, negative amortization, or interest only loans whereby payments are not reducing principle, high fees and interest rates. Eventually, borrower cannot refinance due to lack of equity.

High Debt Ratios

This is the practice of approving loans with high debt ratios, usually50% or more, without determining the true ability of the borrower to repay the loan. Can often be seen with Prime borrowers approved through the Automated Underwriting Systems.

High Loan to Value loans

Loans offered to a borrower having little or no equity in the home. Usually, adjustable-rate mortgages that the borrower will not be able to refinance out of when the rate adjusts due to lack of equity.

Fraudulently Caused to Execute Loan Documents

Adjustable-rate mortgage loan was an inter-temporal transaction on which Plaintiffs had only qualified at the initial teaser fixed rate and could not qualify for the loan once the interest rate terms change.

Deception, Fraud, Unconscionable

Is marketed in a way that fails to fully disclose all material terms. Includes any terms or provisions which are unfair, fraudulent, or unconscionable. Is marketed in whole or in part based on fraud, exaggeration, misrepresentation, or the concealment of a material fact. Includes interest only loans, adjustable-rate loans, negative amortization and HOEPA loans.

Stated or No Income/No Assets

Is based on a loan application that is inappropriate for the borrower. For instance, the use of a stated-income loan application from an employed individual who has or can obtain pay stubs, W-2 forms and tax returns.

Lack of Due Diligence in Underwriting

Is underwritten without due diligence by the party originating the loan. No realistic means test for determining the ability to repay the loan. Lack of documentation of income or assets, job verification. Usually with Stated Income or No documentation loans but can apply to full documentation loans.

Inappropriate Loan Programs

Is materially more expensive in terms of fees, charges and/or interest rates than alternative financing for which the borrower qualifies. Can include prime borrowers who are placed into subprime loans, negative or interest only loans. Loan terms whereby the borrower can never realistically repay the loan.

All claims and defenses the borrower may have against the mortgage lender, mortgage broker, or other party involved in the loan transaction.

FRAUD STOPPERS Evaluates Each File for Violations of “Common Law Principles”

CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD

Material facts include the terms of the loan, whether there is a prepayment penalty, or any other information which a reasonable borrower would want to know before accepting the loan. Did the broker or loan officer or anyone working for the broker or loan officer fail to disclose any material facts to the borrower?

FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

Were any representations, statements, or comments, written or made by the loan officer, broker, notary or anyone else who contradicted the terms of the documents?

NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

When a mortgage professional makes errors which a reasonably diligent mortgage professional would not have made, he or she may have made a negligent misrepresentation.

BREACH OF CONTRACT

The note and its attachments are a contract. The broker must follow all the terms of the contract such as the way the interest is calculated, and the penalties it assesses. Were there any terms in the contract which the lender failed to follow?

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

And many, many, more…….