“One reason that banks might be unable to solve their document problems would be that, Massachusetts-style, they had failed to comply with state law during the securitization process. (In Massachusetts, the problem was doing “assignments in blank.”) Another reason would be if the securitizations weren’t done in compliance with their own terms, as testimony has suggested.
The banks are getting what they deserve for FRAUD for an easy buck they thought.They sold these loans and made a fortune but they forgot to keep the original docs.
Like I said on similar threads, if someone owed me $300,000, you can bet I’d have the promissory note.
And I don’t even have a fancy office address and a team of attorneys.
What scares the banks even more is the investors who brought the mortgage backed securities were based on a bank prospectus that stated all these mortgages were owned by the bank (ala hold title, note, etc). The investors can sue the banks for the inaccurate prospectus info. It is so funny that two years after the meltdown, no one in the major banks that melted down ever went to jail. Feds keep claiming that there were no legal grounds to prosecute. Lying on a prospectus is fraud. So is the rating agencies giving these securities AAA ratings when the documentation of these loans were sketchy or nonexistant.
These bloggers are crackheads. The foreclosing lawyers are going to need to make sure that they have all the proper paperwork necessary to show that their clients own the loans. That should not be hard to do and it is the way that things should be done.
As for the MA decision, the court decision was not easy to read and I think most of these bloggers have it wrong. An assignment in blank that is not signed before notice of sale and foreclosure BY ITSELF is not sufficient — but if the ultimate assignee can show a chain of title from the last recorded mortgagee to the ultimate assignee through PSA and MLPA schedules, the assignment in blank does not have to be in recordable form prior to notice of sale and foreclosure.
Bottom line — there are virtually NO cases where the bank is trying to foreclose and never gave the borrower the money. Everyone knows the borrower got the money. If the borrower received the money and cannot pay, the bank should be able to foreclose.