LivingLies: “With debts, financial analysts and innovators discovered that a debt can be broken up into different attributes — interest, principal, monthly payments, fees etc. And they found that each of these attributes could be separately sold. But this created a monetary split which the law did not recognize.

Nevertheless, it occurred. The law requires the presence of a specific legal person who possesses a claim based upon actual loss from nonpayment. With the split, the potential claimants immediately broadened to everyone who had purchased any attribute of the debt. This makes it difficult if not impossible to present or even identify one legal person who actually has the legal standing to bring a claim for nonpayment.

Hence no creditor is alleged or identified and no ownership of the debt is alleged or proven.  [. . .]

Securitization, to be clear, is the process of distributing the risk of any investment to many people. There is nothing wrong with it. It has been done for centuries and it is the basis for capitalism which is our system and seems, by general agreement, to be the best economic system humans have yet to devise, despite its obvious shortcomings.

“Securitization” since 1983 has taken on a more particular meaning, i.e., the distribution of risk on consumer debt, and in particular residential loans because those are the biggest debts. All paper instruments that declare ownership of a particular asset derive their value from that asset.

So all such paper instruments are by definition derivatives whether the paper is a certificate of common stock, a bond, car title or anything else. “Derivatives” has taken on a more particular meaning, i.e., instruments that derive their value from debt.

In theory securitization of debt can be accomplished in one of two ways: either many people invest in one debt or many people invest in many debts. The obvious answer is that diversification of investment diminishes the risk of a total loss. So securitization became the investment by many people into many debts.”

Source: How to Understand Debt and Money in Foreclosures Today

Past Broadcasts can be found on the link below. Well worth the listen.

LivingLies: “The continued appearance of DiTech and or Aurora is actually a sparkling example of arrogance emanating from the investment banks that too often control the narrative. If either DiTech or Aurora ever owned a single debt, it was probably one in a million.

With the bankruptcy petitions involving several entities bearing the name of DiTech or Aurora and additional bankruptcies involving closely related entities like GMAC and Lehman Brothers, somehow we have been led to believe that the investment banks were so negligent that they actually left the loans in the entities that filed petitions for relief in bankruptcy with schedules that were devoid of virtually any loans.”

Source: Tonight! Why the Bankruptcies of DiTech and Aurora Matters! Neil Garfield Show 6PM EDT

LivingLies: “If a trust is named or implied as mortgagee or beneficiary you are not just threatening the one case of foreclosure filed against you, but all foreclosures initiated in the name of that trust.”

Source: How to Put Leverage Back Into the Hands of Homeowners

LivingLies: “Where the nonjudicial post-foreclosure trustee sale is not property initiated, ” … a borrower may base a wrongful foreclosure claim on allegations that the foreclosing party acted without authority because the assignment by which it purportedly became beneficiary under the deed of trust was not merely voidable but void.” (Yvanonova, supra, at pp. 851-852.) “A void contract is without legal effect. (Rest.2d Contracts,§ 7, com. A.) “It binds no one and is a mere nullity.” (Little v. CFS Service Corp. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1354, 1362, 233 Cal.Rptr. 923.)

“Such a contract has no existence whatever. It has no legal entity for any purpose and neither action nor inaction of a party to it can validate it …. ” (Colby v. Title Ins. And Trust Co. (1911) 160 Cal. 632, 644, 117 P. 913.) “If a purported assignment necessary to the chain by which the foreclosing entity claims that power is absolutely void, meaning of no legal force or effect whatsoever, [internal citations omitted] the foreclosing entity has acted without legal authority by pursuing a trustee’s sale, and such an unauthorized sale constitutes a wrongful foreclosure. (Yvanonova, supra, at pp. 855-856; citing Barrionuevo v. Chase Bank, N.A., at pp. 973-974.”

Source: California Decision for Borrower Post Sale in Eviction Proceeding

LivingLies: “For some reason I have been getting more questions about MERS lately. My analogy has always been that MERS is like a holograph of an empty paper bag. So here are some basic factors for the checklist and analysis: MERS never signed any contract with any borrower.

• MERS never has any contractual or other legal relationship with investors (certificate holders) or Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) like Fannie, Freddie or Sallie.
• MERS never signed any agreement or contract with most named “lenders.”
• MERS never signed any agreement or contract with respect to any specific loan transaction or acquisition.
• MERS was never the Payee on any note from a borrower.
• MERS never loaned any money in any residential loan transaction.
• MERS never paid any money for the acquisition of any residential loan agreement, debt, note or mortgage.
• MERS never handled any money arising from the origination of the loan.
• MERS never handled any money raising from administration of the loan.
• MERS never received a loan payment. …”

Source: Just to be clear, MERS is absolutely nothing.

“Homeowners come to loan examiners for one purpose: to find a way to get relief from a deal that was probably not viable when it was made and is certainly not viable now. They are usually “behind” in their payments. Their accounts have been declared delinquent and notices of default have been sent and received. Phone calls, letters and even statutory requests under RESPA and FDCPA are routinely ignored.

So the homeowner is asking you “who am I really dealing with here and what can I do to get through to the real people who own my debt?” You probably can never answer that question because the answer is more theoretical than actual. But your investigation can arm them with the information they need to undercut the case against them. And THAT is how homeowners win cases against false claimants making false claims.

The fact that all the documents in all the loans are fabricated, forged and robosigned as distractions from the real facts does little to advance the position of your client. But you are not an advocate. You are a fact finder.”

Source: Reference sheet for Forensic Examiners Seminar —“Lenders” that Died.

WAKE UP AMERICA!

The goal is foreclosure. There can be no doubt that the modification process over the last 20 years has been largely an exercise in futility. That’s because the parties who are asserting the right to collect, enforce or administer residential loans actually have no interest in making the loan a performing loan.

And that is because they do not have any of the loans as an asset on their balance sheets. Allowing a nonperforming loan to be modified would merely preserve a stream of revenue consisting of principal, interest, insurance, and taxes together with fees is attached to that revenue stream.

But a foreclosure results in the sale of the property. This produces a windfall equivalent to the sales proceeds. This windfall is distributed as revenue to all of the players who participated in the foreclosure, including at least one undisclosed player – the investment bank (or the successor investment bank) that started the scheme.

Source: Federal Judge Slams Bayview and Attorneys on Illegal “Modification” Maneuvering

Foreclosure is the civil equivalent of capital punishment recognized for centuries as a drastic draconian remedy. Why would you let that happen simply because someone wants to make more money than they already did off of a transaction in which the homeowner received no disclosure of the true nature of the deal?

Source: Why Standing is Important

A recent decision from the 1st Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals applying FRE 803(6) states the current law — whether you like it or not. Pretending these decisions don’t exist or trying to avoid them is both pointless and highly likely to undermine your credibility in any other narrative or argument. Note that…

“Simply stated the transaction history will be admitted into evidence every time — UNLESS the borrower disputes their content and demands a hearing on truthfulness of the foundation testimony in which the magic words are spoken, as set forth in the Federal Rule and virtually all state court rules.”

Source: Payment History as Exception to Hearsay Rule

We are inundated with requests for help. We will try to get to each request in timely fashion but in the meantime perhaps this post will be of some assistance. Most people start off by bringing to us a case that is already in progress. But for those whose case is just starting this article…

Source: Help! I need somebody! How to convince an attorney to take your foreclosure case