FREDDIE MAC WARNS ABOUT SHORT SALE FRAUD PARTICIPATION

Attorneys & Realtors especially need to listen up to this…

For a perfect example of this, here is a story about the Short Sale Kid in Florida who has raised many questions.

What is a short payoff?

A short payoff occurs when a borrower cannot pay the mortgage on his or her property and is permitted to sell the property for less than the total amount due, at a loss to the lender, investor and/or insurer. All parties consent to the mortgage being paid “short,” primarily because the property does not need to go through foreclosure. Please note that many legitimate short payoffs take place in the real estate market.

What is short payoff fraud?

According to a member of Freddie Mac’s Fraud Investigation Unit, a slight variation of our general definition of mortgage fraud also defines short payoff fraud – “Any misrepresentation or deliberate omission of fact that would induce the lender, investor or insurer to agree to the terms of a short payoff that it would not approve had all facts been known.” Misrepresentations in these schemes may include the buyer of the short payoff property, a subsequent transaction at a higher price, and/or the selling borrower’s hardship reason used to qualify for the short payoff. In many instances, the short payoff fraud will involve a “facilitator,” engaged by either the listing agent or the selling borrower, to assist with negotiating the transaction.

How is short payoff fraud committed?

There are many variations of short payoff fraud. The example below is just one way this type of mortgage fraud can occur.

  • A seller (delinquent borrower) owes $100,000 on a property that is worth $80,000.
  • The short payoff facilitator negotiates with the bank to accept a $70,000 offer to purchase the property. In several instances, Freddie Mac has seen that this offer will be made directly by the facilitator or through an entity under his/her control.
  • The lender/investor accepts the offer for $70,000.
  • The facilitator neglects to disclose to the lender/investor that there is an outstanding offer between the facilitator and a second end-buyer for $95,000.
  • Both transactions close on the same day with the net difference being pocketed by the facilitator and increasing the lender/investor’s net losses.

At first glance, this may look like a legitimate short payoff. However, in this example, the fraud is the failure to disclose the second, higher offer. The facilitator is willfully withholding important information the same way a scam artist would, and the lender does not realize they are walking into a premeditated short payoff fraud scheme. Because the facilitator is deliberately withholding the higher offer, Freddie Mac also experiences a larger than necessary loss on this sale.

Short Payoff Fraud Prevention Red Flags

Remain alert to the following flags, which may suggest short payoff fraud:

  • Sudden borrower default, with no prior delinquency history, and the borrower cannot adequately explain the sudden default.
  • The borrower is current on all other obligations.
  • The borrower’s financial information indicates conflicting spending, saving, and credit patterns that do not fit a delinquency profile.
  • The buyer of the property is an entity.
  • The purchase contract has an option clause to resell the property.

Short Payoff Fraud Prevention

The following protective measures are recommended in order to detect and mitigate the severity of short payoff fraud:

  • Review all short payoff documentation carefully, including the sale contract. This helps determine if there is an option clause to resell the property at a higher price without notifying the lender.
  • Draft a short payoff arm’s-length affidavit/disclosure notice for all parties involved in the short payoff to help avoid any hidden contracts, or side agreements. The parties involved should be, but are not limited to: the buyer, seller, listing agent, selling agent, short payoff negotiator(s)/facilitator(s), and closing agent.
  • Solicit information from your borrower.
  • Inquire if the borrower is aware of any other parties involved with the short payoff other than real estate professionals.
  • Is there a short payoff negotiator/facilitator involved?
  • Is the borrower aware of any other purchase contracts on the property?
  • Require an executed and signed IRS Form 4506-T, Request for Transcript of Tax Return,from each borrower and process the form to determine if the borrower’s qualifying income is accurate.
  • Order an interior Broker Price Opinion (BPO) and review all other BPOs that have been ordered on the property (drive-bys and full interiors) to establish a high/low value variance. The BPOs should include a past and present Multiple Listing Service (MLS) listing history, as this will determine if the property was relisted in MLS while the short payoff is being processed.
  • Review the Freddie Mac Exclusionary List to see if the parties to the short payoff are on the list. Seller/Servicers can access the Exclusionary List via the selling system, MIDANET®, MultiSuite®, and Loan Prospector®.
  • Immediately notify Freddie Mac if you are aware of a second purchase contract for a higher price.

Important Freddie Mac fraud prevention resources

Leverage the following resources for more information on dealing with fraud:

MORTGAGE SERVICING COMPANIES PREPARING “REPLACEMENT” MORTGAGE ASSIGNMENTS: By Lynn E. Szymoniak, Esq., Ed.

MORTGAGE SERVICING COMPANIES

PREPARING “ REPLACEMENT” MORTGAGE ASSIGNMENTS

By Lynn E. Szymoniak, Esq., Ed. Fraud Digest, May 6, 2010

CALIFORNIA – ORANGE COUNTY

Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC

Tom Croft and others

CALIFORNIA – SAN DIEGO COUNTY

Chase Home Finance

FLORIDA – BROWARD COUNTY

Patricia Arango, Caryn Graham and others

Law Offices of Marshal Watson

FLORIDA – BROWARD COUNTY

Cheryl Samons, Beth Cerni and others

Law Offices of David Stern

FLORIDA – DUVAL COUNTY

Lender Processing Services

Valerie Broom, Margaret Dalton, Michele Halyard, Michael Hunt, Joseph

Kaminsky, Kathy Smith, Coleman Stokes and others

FLORIDA- HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

Florida Default Law Group or Law Offices of Daniel Consuegra

FLORIDA – PALM BEACH COUNTY

Ocwen Loan Servicing

Scott Anderson, Oscar Taveras, Doris Chapman, Jonathan Burgess, Laura

Buxton and others

FLORIDA – PINELLAS COUNTY

Nationwide Title Clearing

Bryan Bly, Vilma Castro, Dhurato Doko, Jessica Fretwell and others

GEORGIA – FULTON COUNTY

Lender Processing Services

Linda Green, Korell Harp, Jessice Ohde, Linda Thoresen, Tywanna Thomas,

Cheryl Thomas, Christie Baldwin and others

MINNESOTA -DAKOTA COUNTY

Lender Processing Services

Liquenda Allotey, Topeka Love, Christine Anderson, Christine Allen, Eric Tate

OHIO – FRANKLIN COUNTY

Chase Home Finance

Christina Trowbridge, Whitney Cook and others

PENNSYLVANIA – ALLEGHANY COUNTY

Home Loan Services, Inc.

PENNSYLVANIA – MONTGOMERY COUNTY

GMAC (and Homecomings Financial)

Jeffrey Stephan, John Kerr and others

SOUTH CAROLINA – YORK COUNTY

America’s Servicing Company

John Kennerty, China Brown and others

TEXAS – COLLIN COUNTY

BAC Home Loan Servicing, f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP

TEXAS – DALLAS COUNTY (COPPELL, TX)

American Home Mortgage Servicing

TEXAS – HARRIS COUNTY

Litton Loan Servicing, LP

Marti Noriega, Denise Bailey, Diane Dixon and others

TEXAS – TARRANT COUNTY

Saxon Mortgage Services

TEXAS – TRAVIS COUNTY

IndyMac Bank Home Loan Servicing

Brian Burnett, Kristen Kemp, Suchan Murray, Chamagne Williams and others

TEXAS – WILLIAMSON COUNTY

IndyMac Bank (years after IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. ceased to exist, many of the signers will sign as officers of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. (the entity that should have made the assignment to the trust years ealier)

Erica A. Johnson-Seck, Dennis Kirkpatick, Eric Friedman and others

UTAH

SALT LAKE COUNTY

Select Portfolio Servicing

Luisa Alfonso, Bill Koch and others

Many mortgage-backed securitized trusts are missing critical documents needed to foreclose – i.e., the mortgage assignment. An excellent discussion of this is found in the decision of Massachusetts Land Court Judge Keith Long reaffirming a 2009 ruling (Ibanez) that invalidated foreclosures on two properties because the lenders did not hold clear title to the properties at the time of the foreclosure sale. Mortgage assignments were a key issue in Ibanez, a case that involved ineffective assignments to the Trust. Judge Long noted:

…the plaintiffs’ own securitization documents required mortgage assignments to be made to the plaintiffs in recordable form for each and every loan at the time the plaintiffs acquired them. Surely, compliance with this requirement would (and certainly should) have been a priority for an entity issuing securities dependent on recoveries from loans, such as these, known from the start to have a higher than normal risk of delinquency and default. U.S. BANK, N.A. v. Antonio Ibanez, et al., Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Land Court Dept., 08 MISC 384283 (KCL).

This Ibanez decision and many others deal with the issue of mortgage assignments prepared years after the closing date of the trust, usually when the Trustee or mortgage servicer has realized that the Trust does not have the assignment needed to foreclose or has a defective assignment – such as one issued in blank, unsigned and undated.

Many trusts and servicers try to replace the missing assignments, often with assignments executed within a few months of the foreclosure – and in many cases even after the foreclosure is filed or the home is sold (in non-judicial foreclosure states). The date and place of the Assignment often reveals whether the Assignment is actually a “replacement” – issued years after the Trust closed, and even years after the original lender supposedly making the Assignment disappeared into bankruptcy.

The servicer rarely identifies itself and discloses that this is an attempt to replace a missing assignment. It is, therefore, very useful to know that Mortgage Assignments notarized in the counties above are more often than not replacement Assignments prepared by or on behalf of the Trusts – by the servicers for the Trust or document preparation companies working for the servicers, or even law firm employees working for the Trust.

Please send corrections/additions to szymoniak@mac.com.

Short Sales…A Breeding Ground for Fraud?

  I’ll Say it again Caveat Emptor… I do hope NAR’s President Vicki Cox Golder got my email!

By: Carrie Bay 04/23/2010 DSNEWS.COM

With defaults continuing to mount and declining property values still widespread, the industry is seeing an increase in short sales. Such transactions are expected to burgeon even further now that the federal government has implemented its Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives (HAFA) program.

Under HAFA, servicers participating in the administration’s foreclosure prevention effort are required to consider a short sale for all homeowners that don’t qualify for a modification, and incentives are paid out to borrowers, servicers, and lien holders for successful short sales.

With the new policies and still-precarious market conditions, short sales are gaining in popularity among lenders and distressed homeowners alike, but as with any modus operandi that rapidly picks up steam, this proliferation can open the gate for fraudulent activity.

Experts say one area of the short sale process particularly vulnerable to fraud is property valuation. Bank-owned fraud attributed directly to schemes involving short sales and REO inventories has increased by 40 percent over the past year and has more than doubled from two years ago, according to market data from the California-based risk mitigation firm Interthinx.

The administration’s HAFA program allows broker price opinions (BPOs) to be used to determine the value of properties to establish a minimum offer for a short sale. Some industry groups claim the allowance of BPOs is likely to exacerbate the potential for fraud. They say that the real estate agents and brokers who perform BPOs have an inherent bias toward producing a fee for themselves, irrespective of ensuring a fair return for the lien holder or homeowner.

In response to these allegations, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) stressed that BPOs are completed by licensed real estate agents who have a detailed knowledge and understanding of real estate pricing and local market trends. The organization argues that BPOs are widely accepted in the industry because of their established reliability and accuracy, and practitioners providing BPOs must adhere to a rigorous code of ethics and recognize their fiduciary responsibility to their clients.

While the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has described short-sale fraud schemes as “difficult to detect since the lender agrees to the transaction,” they are moving higher on the agency’s list of types of mortgage fraud to watch, with the number of cases mounting rapidly.

The FBI defines such fraud as: “Any material misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission relied upon by an underwriter or lender to fund, purchase, or insure a loan.”

Freddie Mac recently issued a notice to its servicers and real estate practitioners on what the GSE called an emerging fraud trend – short payoff, or short sale, fraud.

Short sale volume at Freddie Mac has grew more than 1,000 percent from 2007 to 2009, and the GSE says this upward trend in volume leaves the market ripe for incidences of short payoff fraud.

According to a member of Freddie Mac’s Fraud Investigation Unit, any misrepresentation related to the buyer, a subsequent transaction at a higher prices, or the seller’s hardship reason to qualify for a short sale constitutes fraud.

The GSE outlined several red flags that might suggest short sale fraud:

  • Sudden borrower default, with no prior delinquency history, and the borrower cannot adequately explain the sudden default.
  • The borrower is current on all other obligations.
  • The borrower’s financial information indicates conflicting spending, saving, and credit patterns that do not fit a delinquency profile.
  • The buyer of the property is an entity.
  • The purchase contract has an option clause to resell the property.

Treasury officials say they have already incorporated safeguards against fraud into HAFA. To participate in the program, borrowers and the licensed real estate agent who lists the property are required to sign a Short Sale Agreement (SSA) and sales contract attesting that the transaction is being conducted at arm’s length, meaning the property is not being sold to a relative.

In addition, buyers must agree not to resell, or “flip,” the home within 90 days of the closing date, and the lender/servicer must have an independent property valuation in hand that meets their pre-set net return requirement before agreeing to the short sale. Treasury officials say servicers should terminate the short sale agreement if any evidence of falsification or misrepresentation is discovered.

Related Stories:

AGENTS BEWARE! HERE COME THE HAFA VENDORS aka LPS AFTER YOUR COMMISSION

National foreclosure auctions go online via LPS: “CAVEAT EMPTOR”

Short Sale Supervisor Talks to a Real Estate Agent – Recorded Conversation

Mortgage Servicers: The TRUTH what they don’t want you to know.

Why do mortgage companies continue to buy defaulted loans where the borrowers are either dilinquent or stopped making payments completely? For those who also want to know as to why the banks do not want to work with you. Well this is why…

FORENSIC MORTGAGE AUDITS AS TOOLS TO SAVE FORECLOSURE HOMES

Author: nikoalexopoulos

I wanted to post this great info that I have found from the truth in lending auditors, about forensic mortgage audits and if used properly how they can help you save your home and get a total new reset of your loan at the terms you ask instead of the terms the banks want to force down your throat.

FORENSIC LOAN AUDIT

Why do you need forensics?

You’ve been denied a loan mod. You short sale has been denied. You’ve been told you do not qualify. Your lender has a policy against modifying. You can’t prove a hardship. You make too much money. You can’t hold on any longer waiting on your lender. Your lender refuses to modify your investment properties. You are still current on your payments and can’t get help. Your lender has claimed he can make more money foreclosing on your home.

What is a Predatory Loan?

A Predatory Loan put you on the road to foreclosure the moment you signed the loan documents. It consumes too much of your income. It can or it will wipe you out. Most sub-prime loans are predatory. Most stated income loans are predatory. Most adjustable rate loans are predatory. But that does not mean that a 30-year loan with a fixed rate where you provided documentation is not predatory.

Loan Modifications.

Loan mods where supposed to be the solution to helping homeowners stay in their homes. Billions of dollars were given to the banks by tax payers (that would be you) to “help” keep homeowners in their homes. Homeowners (you) are not getting the help they were promised. But there were some really nice bonuses paid to the Bankers.

Why Won’t Your Lender Help?

Lenders are Bankers. They are about making money-they are not about “help.” They will modify your loan if it will make them money. They will choose some other way to get their money, if you are too great of a risk. Foreclosure is a great way to get money. Selling your loan to another lender is a great way to get money. An insurance policy that may pay out if you default on your loan is a great way to get money.

The Lender Wants Money:

Does your home still have equity? Have you missed far too many payments? Can your loan be sold to another lender? Is your loan violation free? Is there an insurance premium to collect? Are you still current on your loan? A “YES” to any one or a combination of these means that you are not necessarily going to get a loan modification. After all, there is a much better chance of getting money if you are REMOVED FROM THE EQUATION or (if current) IGNORED.

Forensics Save Homes There are many federal laws that lenders must follow when they issue loans. Predatory loans do not follow those laws. It is the lender’s responsibility to handle and resolve any violations of TILA, RESPA, HOEPA, ECOA and to address and resolve FRAUD when they are found in loan documents. Their licenses are at risk if they don’t address the matter.

FRAUD AND FEDERAL VIOLATIONS:

Think about it: Would you buy a loan from a lender if it had a report on file of fraud and federal violations? Nope. You’d stay away from that because you don’t want to inherit another man’s mess. How about that insurance premium? Forget that-it’s more than likely null and void now that the loan is fraudulent or violation heavy.

FORECLOSURE OFTEN ILLEGAL:

If the loan documents show fraud or violations of any of the federal laws, then that lender is going to have a very hard time making a foreclosure stick. If you are in a foreclosure the forensics can and have stopped it. If you’re headed toward foreclosure – the forensics can and have prevented it.

STILL CURRENT ON YOUR LOAN?

The facts: Lenders can’t afford to lose your revenue. It is in their best interest to keep collecting your monthly payment while you churn and burn in the system – hoping for help. More than likely, you’ll be denied because you don’t really have a hardship. You’ll be told that they are getting around to you, but first they have to handle the people with foreclosure auction dates. You’ll be told there is no help for you until you start missing payments.

INVESTMENT PROPERTIES CAN BE SAVED:

They are not exempt from federal laws. It is the in house policy of the lender that has you losing your investment properties. It is amazing how fast those policies can be changed when the lender is shown the laws that have been broken.

THE LAWS ARE ON YOUR SIDE:

Unfortunately, your lender is not going to call or write letting you know that your loan has violations. “Hello Joe. Hey GREAT news, we just found out we broke several federal laws when we issued you that loan. So we are going to fix this whole mess for you. Hey, you know, one of the laws we broke, well it turns out, you get free title of the place. Is that just terrific or what? So we’ve got that title coming to you in the next couple of weeks.” Sadly, you are never going to get that call – where’s the money making – in that?

IF YOU USE THE LAWS:

“Hello can you put me through to Mr. Loan Shark?” “Hello Mr. Loan Shark, this is Joe and I got some GREAT news. We just found out you broke several federal laws when you issued us that loan. So we just need you to fix this whole mess. Hey, you know, we still want our house and let’s just negotiate some new terms. We’ve got a truth in lending auditor (TILA) representative on the job – they’ll talk the talk with you. Is that terrific or what? So we are really looking forward to your offer now that we can all honestly come to the negotiations table together.

We are not a loan modifications company. We are not on the lenders payroll. We are not on the government’s payroll. We are an audit company. We investigate your loan.

We then use these forensics to negotiate any one of the following for you absolutely free.

Loan Mod/Loan Restructuring, Short Sale or Short Refi, Short Payoff, Deed In Lieu.

TRUST… Who can you trust?

Your lender tells you that he wants to help you and then denies you and sends you foreclosure papers…(it seems you paid him to take your home.) Boston Globe reports that lenders don’t want to modify loans; they find no profit in helping the distressed. The president tells you that your tax dollars, if given to the lenders will help save your home – only it turns out that same lender just send you the foreclosure papers… And a little web search shows news articles revealing the facts: the bailout was about keeping the lenders in business, not helping the homeowners.

THE ONLY GUARANTEE:

The only thing your lender guarantees is FORECLOSURE. Temp mods – don’t always result in permanent mods. The lenders have canceled permanent mods. Many mods raise the payments to astronomical levels – home goes back to the bank AFTER they collect a few more payments. Short sales have been denied – often after they were approved. Month after month the foreclosures rise to record – high numbers in cities across the nation.

“Yah, but my lender says…”

I don’t need anybody to help me…they will help me modify my loan for free, they even send me a letter in the mail to warn me away from professionals who may try to help me. I shouldn’t trust any professional that wants to charge me money to modify my loan…you know, ‘cuz they’ll do it for free. I’m not sure, but I don’t think they want me to investigate them either…they wouldn’t actually come right out and say….

WHO ISSUED THAT LOAN?

Why on earth would you trust or listen to a company that issued you an illegal loan while telling you how good it was…you know, the loan that is wiping you out now? Why on earth would you think they, who initiated the first lies, are not lying to you now?

WHY DO YOU NEED AN EXPERT?

We are the expert at forensic loan review. We work as your hired gun to show the lender all the violations in “his” loan. If you had a cavity, would you drill the hole yourself, or go to the dentist? If the Judge told you that didn’t need a lawyer, he would listen to your case for free, would you do it? How could you conduct your own investigation and get the lender to accept it as a professional review? Even attorneys get lawyer to represent them in court.

If you don’t get help…

You may be ok. You may be one of the very few who actually get a modification. Or you may be one of the thousands who loses their home, or continues to give the bank far more in monthly payments than you can honestly afford until the bank finally gets your home.

To date every single loan the bankers have issued and we have investigated has been full of violations; you don’t have to believe us, you don’t have to trust us, you only need to get your loan investigated.

 

MORTGAGE ASSIGNMENTS AS EVIDENCE OF FRAUD, by Lynn Szymoniak, ESQ.

 MORTGAGE ASSIGNMENTS AS EVIDENCE OF FRAUD 

Lynn Szymoniak, Esq., Editor, Fraud Digest, February 9, 2010 (szymoniak@mac.com

In the past ten years, hundreds of thousands of residential mortgages were bundled together (often in groups of about 5,000 mortgages), and investors were offered the opportunity to buy shares of each bundle. This process is called securitization. 

Each such bundle of residential mortgages was given a name, such as “Soundview Home Loan Trust 2006 OPT-2.” The name indicates information about the particular trust such as the year it was created (2006) and its contents (with OPT indicating that the loans in that particular trust were originally made by Option One Mortgage). Each such bundle/trust has a Cut Off Date identified in the trust documents (specifically, in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement). The Cut Off Date is the date on which all mortgage loans in the trust must be identified. In short, a final list of all of the mortgages in the bundle is set out. Each trust also has a Closing Date which is the date that the individual mortgages are transferred to the Trust Custodian, who must certify that for each mortgage, the custodian has a mortgage note endorsed in blank and proof that the ownership of the note has been transferred. This proof is most often an Assignment of Mortgage. Most trusts included the following or equivalent language regarding the Assignments: “Assignments of the Mortgage Loans to the Trustee (or its nominee) will not be recorded in any jurisdiction, but will be delivered to the Trustee in recordable form, so that they can be recorded in the event recordation is necessary in connection with the servicing of a Mortgage Loan.” 

 Title insurance companies issued policies guaranteeing that the trust had clear title to the mortgages. 

When widespread defaults occurred, Trustees discovered that the laws regarding Mortgage Assignments varied significantly from state to state. Many issues regarding such Assignments were simply unresolved. One of the most significant issues was whether Mortgage Assignments could be back-dated or have retroactive effective dates. This issue arose because Trustees and their lawyers discovered in the foreclosure process that the Assignments could not actually be located, or that certain states did not allow blank Assignments. 

To solve the problem of the missing Assignments, new Assignments were made and recorded. Because the question of retroactive Assignments had not been 2 resolved, most of these Assignments did not set forth the actual date that the Assignment took place. The Assignments were signed and notarized as if the transfer took place many years after the actual transfer date. 

The Assignments were prepared by specially selected law firms and companies that specialized in providing “mortgage default services” to banks and mortgage companies. In jurisdictions with a high rate of mortgage defaults, over 80% of the filed Mortgage Assignments in the last three years were prepared and filed by the same five or six law firms and default processing companies. 

In many states, two such Assignments were prepared and filed. The first was prepared in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems as “nominee” for the particular bank or mortgage company. When MERS authority to file foreclosures and Assignments was challenged in most jurisdictions, with varying results, a non-MERS Assignment was prepared as well. 

In all of these cases, the Assignment was prepared to conceal the actual date that the property was acquired by the Trust. An examination of the Assignments filed showing the grantee as the Trust – such as “Soundview Home Loan Trust 2006 – OPT 2” – shows that most of these Assignments were prepared and filed in 2008 and 2009, when, in reality, the mortgages and notes were actually assigned – albeit defectively – prior to the closing date of the Trust. While the exact closing date can only be determined by looking at the trust documents, any Trust that includes the year in 2006 in its title most likely closed in 2006. 

If a Mortgage Assignment is dated, notarized and filed in a year after the year set forth in the name of the grantee trust on the Assignment, it is actually an Assignment specially, and in many cases, fraudulently, made to facilitate foreclosures.  

These Specially-Made Assignments have created havoc in the courts. In many cases, the Specially-made Assignments are dated After the foreclosure action has been initiated, making it appear that the Trust somehow magically knew prior to the assignment that it would acquire the defaulting property several months after the foreclosure action was initiated. 

Repeatedly, courts have asked Trustees to explain why they were acquiring nonperforming loans and whether such acquisition was a violation of the trustee’s fiduciary duty to the Trust. No Trustee has ever come forth and explained that the Trust actually acquired the loan years before the Assignment. As a result, there are many decisions with observations similar to this observation made by Judge Arthur M. Schack of Kings County, New York, in HSBC Bank v. Valentin, 21Misc. 3d 1124 [A]:  

Further, according to plaintiff’s application, the default of defendants Valentin and Ruiz began with the nonpayment of principal and interest due on January 1, 2007. Yet, four months later, plaintiff HSBC was willing to take an assignment of the instant nonperforming loan. The Court wonders why HSBC would purchase a nonperforming loan, four months in arrears? 

And in Deautsche Bank National Trust Co. V. Harris, Judge ARTHUR M. SCHACK Kings, New York, Index No. 39192/2007 (05 FEB 2008): 

Further, the Court requires an explanation from an officer of plaintiff DEUTSCHE BANK as to why, in the middle of our national sub-prime mortgage financial crisis, DEUTSCHE BANK would purchase a non-performing loan from INDYMAC…

 In Massachusetts in October, 2009, Land Court Judge Keith Long reaffirmed a March, 2009, ruling that a lender cannot begin foreclosure proceedings before the lender has filed and recorded the Assignment, stating:

The blank mortgage assignments they possessed transferred nothing…in Massachusetts, a mortgage is a conveyance of land. Nothing is conveyed unless and until it is various agreements between the securitization entities stating that each had a right to an an assignment and they are certainly not in recordable form. U.S. Bank National Association v. Ibanez, Massachusetts Land Court Misc. Case No. 384283, consolidated with two other cases.

Many authors expect the Massachusetts Supreme Court to reverse the Ibanez decision, but the uncertainty itself, as in the case of the MERS challenges, caused lenders to flood recording offices with new Assignments.

In cases where the Trust failed to get a valid Assignment, the problem is complicated by the bankruptcy of the major loan originators, including American Home Mortgage, Option One Mortgage, and Countrywide Home Loans. 

When these big mortgage companies filed for bankruptcy, they did not disclose the mortgages already sold to the trusts as assets, because the transfers occurred months and years prior to the bankruptcy filing. Years later, when the Assignments were required for foreclosures, a bankruptcy court’s permission was needed to Assign billions of dollars in mortgages. Most likely in fear that a Bankruptcy Judge would not rubber stamp such a request, no such permission has ever been sought. 

In lieu of valid Assignments, Trusts continue to rely on Assignments specially made by their own law firms and mortgage default service companies. Eventually, these fraudulent Assignments are being discovered by Courts, and the foreclosing trusts required to prove that they own the Mortgage and Note in the foreclosure action without reliance on Assignments that misrepresent the date of the actual transfer to the Trust the authority of the signers of the bankrupt original lenders. For thousands of homeowners, this realization has come too late.

 

Source: ASSIGNMENTS AS EVIDENCE 

 

AIG FED FRAUD…Straight from JUDGE NAPOLITANO & RON PAUL ! MUST WATCH!

Listen to this JUDGE! He puts it all out there as we know it…who is going to argue with his points!

My Interpretation: I’ll HIDE You! Sshhhh