Documents we don't need no stink'n documents! We know how to handle 'dead beats'! Jose get the rope!
Posted on 10/12/2010 11:52:42 AM PDT by Chunga85
I'm getting tired of this, so I'm going to trot out the proof and stick it under everyone's nose.
We keep hearing that these "lost document" affidavits and similar are just "sloppiness."
They are not. They are hard evidence of fraud, with the only decision left to be made being one on exactly where the fraud happened.
I'm going to show you a document - a Pooling and Servicing Agreement - from one MBS Trust. There are literally thousands just like this. I've read dozens. Those that were sold to the public are all filed on the SEC's web page, and can be found either on EDGAR or SECINFO. Every single one that I've read contains a certification that is, in form and substance, identical to that below.
This specific example is one that others have picked on and happens to be right from the top of the bubble around 2006 - and it also happens to be from our favorite Vampire Squid, Goldman Sachs.
(Excerpt) Read more at market-ticker.org ...
Here you go again - banging that same drum. As if mortgage derivative fraud on the part of the bank means that some “buyer” of a house who can’t afford the mortgage payment anymore should just get the thing for free.
*shakes head*
I’m more concerned over the title to my house. Its through Countrywide, I now make payments to BOA.
If BOA has somehow screwed this up, and I don’t have clean title to my house if I try to sell it....well, lets just say I’ll be upset.
Anyway, I think the story is more than ‘banks were sloppy, so stop foreclosures’...it could affect the liquidity of alot of houses.
Here’s the interesting part to me. If they can’t produce the “documents” for the foreclosed homes...what makes me think they can produce the “documents” or should I say have the documents, for my home or any other home, be it mortgaged or paid for.
I imagine since our mortgage was taken out years ago and subsequently paid, we are safe...but what about somebody that bought in the last three years, not a foreclosure, just a normal sale. Are those documents missing too?
We did buy a foreclosure about a year ago, and I’ve checked our docs from the foreclosure buy with the docs from the home we bought 20 years ago...both look the same. Title insurance, warranty deed, etc. but if I’m reading right, these thing’s won’t matter down the road if the person who was foreclosed on, whose house we bought, were to come back and say they were foreclosed on illegally because the actual “doc” couldn’t be produced. Then I guess we’d be up the creek as we paid cash for the foreclosure...except for the fact that I do hold the warranty deed and title insurance.
My main question though...if these things were all bundled (and evidently that has been the practice for the last few years)...when a person goes to sell their home (even if it wasn’t a foreclosure)...won’t their sale be in jeopardy?
Can of legal worms. And you know what they say about opening a can of worm? Once opened you can never get them back in the same size can.
I am the Republican Alternate Judge in a democrat precinct on 11/2. Just met my democrat Election Judge, a nice, amiable fellow. Some observations:
1. He was demoralized and discouraged. Has had a tough time finding a job in the current recession. I asked him why he did not get some help from his powerful contacts in the democrat party. He scoffed, “They only help out family members. Most of us get excluded from democrat meetings because we are not part of the Inner Circle”.
2. He agreed wholeheartedly that the crooks in the banks and on Wall Street have raped the country and nothing is being done about it. He said of the pols in both parties, “They have been bought and paid for”. This should be a major theme for Republicans in 2012: Prosecute the fraud and clean up our banks and financial institutions. This theme will responate with the common people across both parties.
3. He predicted very low turnout in his dim precinct on 11/2.
4. He was a fan of Ron Paul. I could tell that he was on the verge of quitting his party. We need to sew a gusset on our Big Tent to let him have a seat. He is a pro-life father and family man, but his foreign policy is neo-isolationist.
“I’m more concerned over the title to my house. Its through Countrywide, I now make payments to BOA.
If BOA has somehow screwed this up, and I don’t have clean title to my house if I try to sell it....well, lets just say I’ll be upset.”
I agree with this. I too would be pissed if I my title was screwed up and I couldn’t sell. That is a different issue than what Kartographer brings up which is the subject of “deadbeats” - people who are in foreclosure because they couldn’t handle their payments. Even those with loan modification problems are tacitly admitting they couldn’t handle the initial payment.
This could happen to me, too. I could lose my job and become unable to pay my mortgage. But that doesn’t mean I should just get my house for free if the bank screwed up the title. That’s ludicrous.
The right answer would be for the bank to incur all legal costs while repairing the title problem, assume all mortgage payments once the title problem has become apparent and the owner can no longer sell, and any reasonable damages resulting from the inability to sell. This may or may not amount to the cost of the house *if* a big job was on the line and you had to move, for example.
But I think in most cases it will not be.
Moreover, if the house is in foreclosure, it should have zero impact on the person being foreclosed upon. It should affect the banks ability to resell the house. I know some legal sharks are going to vehemently disagree (”How can they foreclose on something to which they don’t hold a clear lien???”) If that’s the case - and there is no clear owner of the property anymore - than maybe we should kick out the people living there, too. After all, if the title and liens are so muddled, who can even say they have a right to be there in the first place?
Oh, but that will never happen.
Applicants must be willing to perjure themselves all day long.
People behind that need to be foreclosed on should be and they should not get the house for free. But the foreclosure should NOT be based on forged documents and perjured statements. Forged documents and perjury are not part of our legal system and I do not want it to be no matter what. My statement is that many on here would except the use of forged documents and perjuryed statements if it would keep a ‘dead beat’ from recieving a free house. I ask you once
we accept such behavior what is to prevent them from using the same to defraud honest home owners?
I have more ‘skin’ in this game than most of you I am current with my mortgage, but it is listed three times in MERS (I checked last night). So I’ll most likely at sometime have to spend thousands of dollars and lots of time to get the mess cleaned-up.
I'm in an identical situation with a rental property - was Countrywide, now BOA. I would think that the title insurance I paid for on closing would protect me more than it would the bank, but who knows.
Based on your enthusiasm for this subject, I bet you are behind on your house payments and *praying* that the bank has somehow fouled their claim to the lien through a faulty derivative sale. Then all your problems will be over, just like that woman who expected Obama to put gas in her car and pay her mortgage.
I've been raising this issue for a while now and, by and large, been mocked and ridiculed by the shallow minded "blame the deadbeat homeowner" crowd.
Seems to me it's becoming apparent who the biggest deadbeats are.
Diana Olick CNBC Real Estate Reporter 10/12/2010
Foreclosure Fraud: It's Worse Than You Think
$nip>
There has been plenty of pontificating over the ramifications of foreclosure freezes on troubled borrowers, foreclosure buyers and the larger housing market, not to mention lawsuits, investor losses and bank write downs. There has been precious little talk of what the real legal issues are behind the robosigning scandal. Yes, you can't/shouldn't sign documents you never read, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. The real issue is ownership of these loans and who has the right to foreclose. By the way, despite various comments from the Obama administration, foreclosures are governed by state law. There is no real federal jurisdiction.
A source of mine pointed me to a recent conference call Citigroup [C 4.205 0.025 (+0.6%)] had with investors/clients. It featured Adam Levitin, a Georgetown University Law professor who specializes in, among many other financial regulatory issues, mortgage finance. Levitin says the documentation problems involved in the mortgage mess have the potential "to cloud title on not just foreclosed mortgages but on performing mortgages."
$nip>
Just announced: 144 Billion shelled out for Wall Street Bonuses! Yippeeee! They broke last year's record!
Wretched Wall Street Bonus Bump!
OK - your post 12 makes me regret my post 14 (which was being written before I saw 12).
Post #12 is reasonable to a point. The problem is that when there is a problem with the lien due to derivative sales AND the resident isn’t paying, what do you do?
You obviously shouldn’t base foreclosure on forged documents, but there has to be some way to handle non-payers.
This reminds me of a situation in NYC where I had a car stolen. I had put the car up for sale and found a prospective buyer. He gave me a forged bank check to obtain the car. The check looked so damn real (and he seemed like such a nice guy) that I let him take the car. Little did I know that my girlfriend had accidentally left the title in the car. When the perp found that, he *forged* the transfer of the title to his name, too.
Now here’s the best part: not only did I know where this guy lived, he *admitted* to the police that he had taken the car without paying for it. Do you think that means the police stepped in and retrieved my car? Nope - because there was a “title problem.” Of course I explained that he had forged the title (another crime) and this could be proved by matching signatures, but they didn’t care. The said it was a matter for small claims court.
The way I see it there were three crimes committed:
a) Forging the check
b) Forging the title signature
c) Stealing the car - larceny by deception
I was told that this deadbeat would keep the car despite admitting having obtained it from me AND not paid for it. All because of a “title problem.”
Unfortunately, I never took him to small claims court despite my burning desire for justice to be served. The max recoverable damages in small claims in NYC was $3000. The car was “sold” for $3800. More importantly, as a consultant earning $220/hr on an out-of-state gig, the *opportunity cost* to pursue the small claim was MORE than the max recoverable damages. (Assuming a potential midweek court date with round trip flight to get back, plus court fees.)
I assuaged myself with the knowledge that I did get him arrested one night for driving an unregistered limo, with no insurance, and a suspended license. The limo was impounded and, since it was his bread and butter, he lost a ton of money in the process.
Anyway, deadbeats piss me off. I hate the idea of a deadbeat getting away with property because of a legal loophole. I’ve been on the receiving end of that, so you can imagine how I feel about someone getting a house.
If the bank can’t prove clear title, the validity of any following "securitizations" is in question.
The bank had to have clear title to sell the loan into the securitization, not having such would be a breach of the prospectus of the deal.
How eager do you think Ben and Timmy are to turn that rock over??
Sue all the "lender" agents (appraiser, underwriter, title insurer, etc) for gross negligence.
Use the proceeds to pay whoever lost money - that would be the taxpayer.
...and the deadbeat keeps on living in the house?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.