Interesting thought here as I read Chain of Title which makes a point to say the investors don’t own the actual loan. We now have documents that identify the mortgagors as a third-party to the process between the banks (and of course they would have to be since they unwittingly, with no disclosure, pledged their collateral); and, agreements defining the unlimited use of the collateral assets to pledge, repledge, reuse, rehypothecate, hypothecate – all of which the homeowners did not agree or allow by contract. It is time to make judges define their understanding of the word “transfer” in the note and “sold” in the mortgage.
These are not traditional mortgages. The securitization and “procurement of collateral” agreements were pre-existing to the faux mortgage and note documents and the homeowner’s signature. However, there was no disclosure to the homeowner. These were internally contracted securities transactions.
BASIC INC. v. LEVINSON, 485 U.S. 224 (1988) identifies fraud on the market. Omission is just as serious as misrepresentation.
The current talking points used by the Banks is that somehow the Trust can enforce the alleged loan even though it is the “investors” who own the loan. But that can only be true if the Trust owns the loan which it doesn’t. And naming the “investors” as the creditor does nothing to clarify the situation — especially when the “investors” cannot be identified.
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
I know of a case pending now where US Bank allegedly sued as Trustee of what appears to be named Trust. In Court the corporate representative of the servicer admitted that the creditor was a group of investors that he declined to name. I knew that meant two things: (1) neither he nor anyone else knew which investor was tied to the subject…
View original post 975 more words
Deadly Clear 