This is one of the most comprehensive explanations ever published. Thank you Max for the hard work and all you do for all of us.
see Max Gardner EXPLAINS _ Who-Owns-the-Note
Just received this by email. Easily the best mapping and explanation of the written documentation that I have ever seen. The issue is whether any of this makes any difference. Max may be right in following the paper trail. But my bet is on the actual money and then comparing it to the paper trail to see where it matches up and where it does not. Those are the points of conflict that need to be resolved in litigation. Max writes
“I created charts and graphs for the transfer of a negotiable note and for the sale of a non-negotiable note. Also, I decided to actually track a Wells Fargo RMBS deal in order to attempt to explain how both relate to the securitization process. The attached is the only real “charting” I have ever seen that seeks to explain the differences between…
View original post 35 more words
Deadly Clear 
I agree, if there is no loss then their is no case, and only the paper trail can prove the loss. For economic loss claims the people would have to show the paper trail and loss of incomes to claim damage or harm. The proof of the loss is vital in my unprofessional opinion.
So, kindly tell me what any of this has to do with whether the mortgagor owes the debt and must forfeit the collateral for breaching that note. Does the court have any doubt about whom the borrower should pay? Isn’t it obvious from the mortgage and notices that the borrower MUST pay the SERVICER? So, why should the foreclosure trustee or the court care who owns the note?
In the state of Washington there is a RCW statute that says if you pay the wrong party you are obligated to pay the correct party. The wrong party has been committing fraud upon the courts and the people. Just because you owe a debt to someone, does not mean you are obligated to pay it to the wrong party. The assignments are fraud, the parties claiming to be the servicers are not the real party of authority to be the servers. People have the legal duty to make sure they are paying the correct party and the servicer with the proper authority. This is not happening. Parties lacking standing are in the courts in mass every day.
That question would take several posts to answer. In short, the trustee never received the note. Apparently the trustees didn’t want it transferred to the trusts or never checked the documents to confirm they were ready for the vault.
IMHO – UETA and E-Sign plays a major role. A lot of information was withheld from the homeowner, including the failure to get his explicit agreement to electronically transfer the mortgage loan documents. Without electronic transferability it is questionable as to whether securitization could even occur. This failure is pivotal in the entire scheme. Couple that with the paragraph in the note that says “may transfer” as if it were in the future when in fact the transfer had already occurred with the funds from the warehouse/investment bank (again without disclosure or a meeting of the minds); and the paragraph “any” obligor must pay the note – it does not say only “bobhurt” must pay the note – as it appears the note was designed to incorporate others who were in agreements in this scheme to make payments for the homeowner (again without disclosure) and who are not in contract with the homeowner… And then there is the MERS blur factor where the straw man is not the registry or the membership entity and has been an intentional distraction from the truth… Starts to line up the facts that make these contracts vulnerable and possibly unenforceable.
If these notes are claimed to be owned by a trust – have the tranches been paid – are there losses? If so how much? Homeowners had unwittingly entered a casino – not a bank. There should have been full disclosure and a meeting of the minds. There was none. The banks have been paid (thank you very much) several time over – and eventually good judges like Hon. Judge Shack will enforce full discovery, if we’re lucky, and we’ll find out how many trillion$ were sucked out of the world economies in this huge Ponzi scheme.
You can’t breach an unenforceable contract.
Oh, and PS – Borrower bashing doesn’t fly well here. Our facts are like Uzis and we can fire off enough rounds to sit anyone back down in his seat – because the facts are on the homeowners’ side and intelligent judges are making that known.
Yes Yes and Yes and Thanks. =)
Let’s see the court opinions supporting your legal theories. I don’t like the note shenanigans, but none of them remove borrower liability. Only one thing can do that: the lender’s injury of the borrower at the inception of the deal. To discover that, the borrower needs to get a competent professional to perform a comprehensive examination of all the borrower’s mortgage-related documents.
Green Door: WITH such proof, the borrower might settle out of court easily, and if the matter goes to court anyway, the counter/cross claim by the borrower can result in awards of compensatory and punitive damages and costs/legal fees.
Red Door: By contrast, what does the borrower get upon winning a foreclosure dispute, which virtually never happens? The same old house needing repairs and an overburdensome mortgage with an underwater loan.
Which door seems best to you – red or green?
Bob you are a dope. The note has to be an unpaid instrument I.e. the note must be owned. To be unpaid, somebody has to report the unpaid receivables on it balance sheet ledger. There can be no default on a paid off instrument. Last I checked undisclosed third parties can discharge debt under a note just as well as the borrower can.
I add who wants to donate their hard earned money to thieves and robbers. Then owe someone else. Who deserves compensation for the loss of their incomes and stolen houses? Families have lost incomes taken from them destroyed by a man made economic crime by the banks hands no ours. I have lost enough income since 2006 to have paid my house mortgage off, nearly twice now.