Take the Red Pill and Break Free From the Mortgage Matrix

If you have a MERS mortgage than you may have legal standing to sue for mortgage fraud, clear and marketable title to your real property, or both! More than 70 million mortgages have been securitized thru the MERS system (Mortgage Electronic Registration System) so there is a really good chance that your loan qualifies for remedy. Our understanding is that generally the requirements set forth in the pooling and servicing agreements were not followed, and they were not followed in the following way: The pooling and servicing agreements says that when the notes are transferred to the trust there needs to be an endorsement in blank to the trust, as well as a complete chain of endorsements for all proceeding transfers. That means that the originator of the loan has to have a specific endorsement transferring it from the securitization sponsor, the sponsor to the depositor, and then the depositor in blank to the trust.

• FREE Credit Bureau Dispute Letters
• Federal Debt Validation (DVL) #1

What we have found is that in the majority of the cases that chain of endorsements is not there.  There is simply a single endorsement in blank.

That creates a problem because it does not comply with the trust documents. That is a severe problem because most pooling and servicing agreements are trust that are governed by New York law, and 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, its void. That transfer is void even if that transfer would have otherwise complied with law. And if the transfer is void that would mean that the trust does not own the mortgages, and therefore lacks standing to foreclose.

It’s axiomatic that in order to bring a foreclose 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 relate to the evidentiary need to prove standing.

If your mortgage loan contract was part of a table funded securitized transaction then there is a really good chance that your mortgage loan documents probably contain legal errors, violations, tortuous conduct, contract breaches, and fraud, that could result in you being entitled to receive financial compensation, a reduction in your principal balance, clear and free title to your property, or even better!

If you are currently facing foreclosure, or you have already lost your house to foreclose, we recommend that you take immediate action and register for a free securitization and fraud analysis to discover if you have grounds to achieve legal remedy.

Now is the perfect time to stand up for your legal rights and sue for mortgage and foreclosure fraud because the legal tide is beginning to turn, and homeowners are starting to win!

In 2016 the California Supreme Court ruled in Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corporation (Case No. S218973, Cal. Sup. Ct. February 18, 2016) that homeowners have legal standing to challenge an assignment of the mortgage loan contract in an action for wrongful foreclosure on the grounds that the assignment(s) is/are void.

Obviously if the court had ruled differently, the banks would have had carte blanche to forge mortgage assignments with wild abandon. In fact, without a system of endorsements and assignments it would be impossible to determine who has a legitimate interest in the property!

Cases like the Glaski v. Bank of America  and  Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans may have provided hope for homeowners who were victims of mortgage and foreclosure fraud. But they did not strike at the heart of the real problem behind the securitization of millions of mortgage loans.

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.

The Jesinoski case addressed a borrower’s right to rescind (or cancel) their mortgage loan contract under the federal Truth in Lending Act by only providing written notice to the lender, without filing a suit. A loan is rescinded at the time the rescission letter is mailed. If the lender wants to challenge the rescission they must file an action to do so. They have limited time to do so. And they never do!

Like many other cases, current trial court decisions are getting reversed because the courts are waking up to the reality of the rule of law. What they have been following is an off the books rule of “anything but a free house.” However a recent Yale Law Review Article eviscerates the assumptions of a free house for the homeowners and destroys the myth that somehow that policy has saved the nation. You can read the Yale Law Review article “In Defense of “Free Houses” for more information on this tide change.

In THE PAPER CHASE: SECURITIZATION, FORECLOSURE, AND THE UNCERTAINTY OF MORTGAGE TITLE ADAM J. LEVITIN writes “the mortgage foreclosure crisis raises legal questions as important as its economic impact. Questions that were straightforward and uncontroversial a generation ago today threaten the stability of a $13 trillion mortgage market: Who has standing to foreclose? If a foreclosure was done improperly, what is the effect? And what is the proper legal method for transferring mortgages? These questions implicate the clarity of title for property nationwide and pose a too- big-to-fail problem for the courts.

The legal confusion stems from the existence of competing systems for establishing title to mortgages and transferring those rights. Historically, mortgage title was established and transferred through the “public demonstration” regimes of UCC Article 3 and land recordation systems. This arrangement worked satisfactorily when mortgages were rarely transferred. Mortgage finance, however, shifted to securitization, which involves repeated bulk transfers of mortgages.

To facilitate securitization, deal architects developed alternative “contracting” regimes for mortgage title: UCC Article 9 and MERS, a private mortgage registry. These new regimes reduced the cost of securitization by dispensing with demonstrative formalities, but at the expense of reduced clarity of title, which raised the costs of mortgage enforcement. This trade-off benefited the securitization industry at   the expense of securitization investors because it became apparent only subsequently with the rise in mortgage foreclosures. The harm, however, has not been limited to securitization investors. Clouded mortgage title has significant negative externalities on the economy as a whole.

This Article proposes reconciling the competing title systems through an integrated system of note registration and mortgage recordation, with compliance as a prerequisite to foreclosure. Such a system would resolve questions about standing, remove the potential cloud to real-estate title, and facilitate mortgage financing by clarifying property rights.” You can read the entire paper here: Securitization.Foreclosure.and uncertainty of MTG title Professor Levitin

You may have standing to sue for special or compensatory damages and equitable relief for clear and marketable title to your home!

Over 70 million mortgages in the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) are legally problematic for lenders attempting to foreclose!

If you are currently facing foreclosure, or you have already lost your house to foreclose, we recommend that you take immediate action and register for a free securitization and mortgage fraud analysis to discover if you have legal grounds to sue your lender to save your home.

Thanks to many new ground breaking cases, like the Glaski v. Bank of America case there is finally hope for homeowners who are facing foreclosure.

The Glaski decision states that if some entity wants to collect on a debt they must first legally own that debt! Furthermore, if that entity is claiming ownership by way of an Assignment, it must prove that Assignment is legally valid. If your loan was securitized then the entity trying to collect on your loan does NOT have the standing to do so legally…. And therefore they must be stopped!

If you have a MERS Mortgage then your mortgage loan was securitized and you have standing to sue your lender for special or compensatory damages (treble damages equal to three times the original amount of your loan) plus equitable relief for clear and marketable title to the real property.

If your loan was securitized then your lender breached your mortgage loan contract, and therefore your mortgage loan contract is legally void. If your mortgage loan contract is void, then any assignments of that mortgage loan contract, or subsequent assignments, are also legally void.

Securitization is the process of taking an asset and transforming them into a security. A typical example of securitization is a mortgage-backed security (MBS), which is a type of asset-backed security that is secured by a collection of mortgages.

Keep in mind that it is perfectly legal for banks to create mortgage-backed securities (MBS’s); however there are significant legal ramifications that will either harm you, or benefit you, depending on what actions you take in response to the fact that your mortgage or deed of trust is legally void resulting in your property, in reality, being unsecured, just like a unsecured credit card debt. What’s in your wallet?

If your loan has been securitized then in reality you may have been harmed and maybe entitled to sue for special damages equal to three time the original amount of your loan.. In addition to suing for special damages due to breach of contract, you may have the legal standing to move the court for a declaratory judgment for clear and equitable tile to your real property. In other words clear and free title to your home!

This is why we recommend that you take immediate action and sue for the remedy the law entitles you to, and that you deserve. Treble damages and clear and free title to your home.

Not sure if your loan was securitized, no problem, we will do a free securitization search to help you determine if your loan was securitized and would therefore qualify for litigation.

Unlock the power you need to stop your foreclosure dead in its tracks and make the banks pay you to go away! Take action right now and register to receive a FREE Mortgage Fraud Analysis, FREE Bloomberg Securitization Search, and Confidential Foreclosure Consultation, a free report, and a 1.5 hour educational webinar that reveals important insider information mortgage lenders and banking institutes do not want you to discover about how to sue them for a financial compensation, clear & free title to your home, or even better!

If your loan qualifies for litigation you can become a Member of our Private Members Association (PMA) and begin laying the groundwork for your breach of contract and slander of title lawsuit using our powerful, proven, Administrative Process for only $97 today. This Administrative Process is a pre-litigation, informal discovery process that includes a set of Error Resolution & Information Request Letters (EIRI’s) and a rescission letter, rescinding your loan under TILA, the Truth in Lending Act.

As soon as the Administrative Process is done and you’re ready to file your lawsuit, the Investigations Department will produce your court ready Chain of Title Investigation, along with the signed affidavit from the licensed, bonded, Private Investigator who is a court recognized expert in chain of title and securitization issues.

Your court ready Chain of Title Investigation and Affidavit is only $750. This is the evidence you need to support and win your case. Average turnaround time for this work product is 10 to 14 days.

Once your Chain of Title Investigation is complete, the Legal Department can produce your complaint, along with all the exhibits to your complaint for only $750. This is a savings of approximately 80% compared to the $5,000 retainers most attorneys charge!

In addition to your complaint and the evidence package we have put together an alternative to the existing programs intended to help homeowners facing foreclosure of their residence. We are dedicated to helping homeowners who have, often through no fault of their own, found themselves subject to a mortgage that they either cannot afford or that is so far underwater that it is not in their financial best interest to continue making payments.

Many of the programs that had modest success in the early days have fallen into disfavor as banks have enacted strategies to counter their progress. The banks are not going to go down without a serious fight. They have a large arsenal of tools to use, and the legal muscle to keep the industry off balance. This is not a static game.

The reason that banks have been successful, for the most part, in protecting the large number of mortgages that were securitized is that there is an intricate web of legal theories that they hide behind to justify what they have done. In effect, they have created a shell game where the ball seems to move around in defiance of the laws of physics.

The banks are relying on a complex interaction between UCC 3 commercial paper law, UCC 9 securitization law, bailment law, agency law and local laws of the jurisdiction where the property is located. They would have us believe that what they have been doing since the 1970’s is perfectly legitimate. Many lawyers who have challenged the banks have gotten close to exposing the scheme only to find that judges retreat away from the complexity of the legal theories involved and fall back on procedural barriers under the auspices of protecting the equitable interests of the banks and their agents.

Our Stand and Fight program has moved the bar forward in many substantial ways:

• Our Private Administrative process is a targeted approach to Informal Discovery:
• 3-501. PRESENTMENT or States equivalent
• Mortgage Error Resolution/Request for Information: If you believe there is an error on your mortgage loan statement or you’d like to request information related to your mortgage loan servicing, you must exercise certain rights under Federal law related to resolving errors and requesting information about your mortgage loan. If you think your credit report, bill or your mortgage loan account contains an error, or if you need more information about your mortgage loan, you send a written letter concerning your error and/or request.

Subsection of Presentment (example Covenant 8 of UCC3 Note) shows NOTE and under paragraph 1 states: “BORROWER’S PROMISE TO PAY: In return for a loan that I have received, I promise to pay….

MULTI STATE FIXED RATE NOTE–Single Family–Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT Form 3200 1/01 (page 1 of 3 pages) Covenant:

1. WAIVERS

I and any other person who has obligations under this Note waive the rights of Presentment and Notice of Dishonor. “Presentment” means the right to require the Note Holder to demand payment of amounts due. “Notice of Dishonor” means the right to require the Note Holder to give notice to other persons that amounts due have not been paid.

• 15 U.S. Code § 1692g – Validation of debts

Often a debt collector cannot validate a debt and therefore cannot legally enforce collections.

• Truth In Lending Act (TILA RESCISSION) codified in 12 CFR Part 226 (Regulation Z); particularly§ 226.34 Prohibited acts and §226.32 sub-paragraph (ii) et seq. predatory lending practices

A mortgage loan covered by the Truth in Lending Act may be rescinded by mailing a Rescission Letter to the purported lender, forcing the purported lender/creditor to oppose that rescission with a lawsuit within 20 days or lose all opposition rights.

• The primary focus of the legal aspect of our program revolves around taking the theories and best practices that have been most successful around the country and make refinements.

“Here, the specific defect alleged is that the attempted transfers were made after the closing date of the securitized trust holding the pooled mortgages and therefore the transfers were ineffective.

• Our program seeks to avoid getting mired in the complexity of the various areas of law involved, instead focusing on a simple, focused approach that makes it harder for judges to avoid the strength of our core arguments.

• The PMA trustees and executive team have a diverse set of skills and significant experience in the core areas that will improve the success factors for our operations.

We have spent an exhaustive amount of time analyzing all of the cases that have been successful in resolving mortgage securitization problems. We have designed our legal information litigation strategy to hit the banks hard and fast where they are most vulnerable.

Our primary focus is on getting clear and marketable title to the property by arguing that the actions of the banks have made the security provisions of the mortgage/deed of trust unenforceable.

Instead of fighting the foreclosure itself head-on, we argue that none of the banks or their agents has the right to enforce the foreclosure provisions of the Mortgage/Deed of Trust. In effect, if none of the banks have standing to enforce the foreclosure provision, we are entitled AS A MATTER OF LAW to a declaratory judgment of Breach of Contract (Security Agreement) that is res judicata, i.e., a permanent ban on foreclosure.