World Savings Bank and Fannie Mae Securitizations

world_savings_logoWorld Savings Bank and Fannie Mae Securitizations

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

We have already shown that World Savings Bank securitized commercial and residential loans.  See the following posts:

Now we show that World Savings securitized multi-family housing into Fannie Mae pools.  These “pools” are REMICs.  This deal contains 9 multi-family properties with fixed rate balloon loans.  That’s right – no option ARM loans, which is what World Savings Bank is known for.

Download part 1 of the Trust Indenture here: 1-FixedRate_TrustIndenture_Part_1_1982_last_updated_1987

Download part 2 of the Trust Indenture here: 2-FixedRate_TrustIndenture_Part_2_1982_last_updated_1987

Download the Prospectus here: 3-Prospectus_2003_09_01

Download the Prospectus Supplement here: 4-Prospectus_Supplement_1_2003_09_01

Download the Prospectus Supplement Pool Statistics here: 5-Prospectus_Supplement_Pool_Statistics_2003_09_01

Download the Pool Loan Schedule here: 6-Pool_Loan_Schedule


Securitization Workshop for Attorneys March 19th 2011 in San Francisco

Securitization Workshop for Attorneys March 19th 2011 in San Francisco

By Daniel Edstrom

Join us for our 3rd Securitization Workshop for Attorneys being held in San Francisco on March 19th, 2011.  Visit the event website for more information:

This workshop has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) by the State Bar of California.  Total credit hours approved are 6.75 hours.

Description of event:

March 19th, 2011 – in San Francisco, CALIFORNIA

Continue reading “Securitization Workshop for Attorneys March 19th 2011 in San Francisco”

Irreconcilable Differences… I want a Mortgage Divorce!

Irreconcilable Differences… I want a Mortgage Divorce!

By James Macklin
Secure Document Research

Promissory Note Terms Vs. PSA/Prosectus Terms

When we are handed a voluminous stack of documents at the closing table for our mortgage transaction, a Borrower is expected to make a decision based upon the duty and care that the party who drafted these “investment contracts” has placed into them. However, none of us at the closing table has any idea what most of the words, phrases, and legal terminologies actually means… especially those affecting our rights as a consumer and as a real property owner.
Within the typical language of a Pooling and Servicing Agreement executed by the players of the securitization financing, there are countless references to the “interests” of the asset being conveyed, or, your Note and Deed. Interests are a finicky word of art used. The word simply means this: the asset, along with all of its’ benefits and liabilities. These are the “interests” being conveyed with the sale, set-over, transfer, conveyance, etc. So, under the terms of the Note we signed, look to the section titled: “Who is obligated under the Note” (usually sec. nine (9)). Here you will find that myriad entities may be, and probably are, also obligated under this same Note. These are the terms you have agreed to and bargained for. But the banking intermediaries would have us believe otherwise, as exhibited in the PSA under such language as: “The Depositor, Sponsor/Seller, Swap Counterparty, Master Servicer, Trustee do not intend for any obligation of themselves or their agents or employees to arise as a result of this Agreement”. This is contradictive to the terms and conditions that we have agreed to. Because the intervening assignments are a functional necessity to the bankruptcy remoteness of these assets, the specific substance of the PSA must be followed, including the mandate for the indorsement of each intervening assignment, along with the recordation of those assignment in the proper land title records office within the State of jurisdiction.
Let’s go back to the language of the “Who is Obligated” section of our Note. Notice that anyone who endorses the instrument is also obligated under the Note. Does this create an unknown Obligor at closing? If an un-named Beneficiary is the result of the unilateral agreement known as a Promissory Note”, how do we have the understanding necessary to execute such a critical document? It is the contention of this author, supported by the very agreements signed under oath and filed for record with the SEC, that “interests” and “obligations” are synonomous within the four corners of the agreement we signed…and the agreements signed by the intermediaries. A court of competent jurisdiction shall be posed these foundational questions very soon, and often. Are we a party to these agreements known as PSA/Prospectus? If we do a simple word search on each of these and look for references to: Borrower, Mortgagor, Obligor, we find these terms are typically used in excess of 60-75 times. Yet we were never disclosed the terms and conditions of the actual “loan” transaction as it truly was executed, and the rights, duties and responsibilities of the intermediaries. These are material disclosures relative to fees, expenses and various credit enhancements which are attributed to the Borrowers’ payment stream.
A divorce from this menagerie of deceit is not only appropriate, but a right that is being tried in many courtrooms. I believe that the judiciary will be tested on many platforms and small but visceral victories shall carry the day.

Failure to Allege Lack of Default

Failure to Allege Lack of Default

by Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

I came across the following on Google Scholar (,5):

A. Failure to Allege Lack of Default

First, Nevada law is clear that “[a]n action for the tort of wrongful foreclosure will lie if the trustor or mortgagor can establish at the time the power of sale was exercised or the foreclosure occurred, no breach of condition or failure of performance existed on the mortgagor or trustor’s part which would have authorized the foreclosure or exercise of the power of sale.Ernestburg v. Mortgage Investors Group, No. 2:08-cv-01304-RCJ-RJJ, 2009 WL 160241, at *6 (D. Nev. Jan. 22, 2009) (internal citations and quotations omitted). The plaintiff must establish that they were not “in default when the power of sale was exercised.Id. (citing Collins v. Union Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 662 P.2d 610, 623 (Nev. 1983)). Furthermore, a claim for wrongful foreclosure does not arise until the power of sale is exercised. Collins, 662 P.2d at 623.

Continue reading “Failure to Allege Lack of Default”

Securitization Workshop for Attorneys January 29th 2011 in Los Angeles

Securitization Workshop for Attorneys January 29th 2011 in Los Angeles

By Daniel Edstrom

Join us for our 2nd Securitization Workshop for Attorneys being held in Los Angeles on January 29th, 2011.  Visit the event webiste for more information: and visit our product page for a super early registration price if you sign up by December 31, 2010:

Description of event:

 January 29th, 2010 – in Los Angeles, CALIFORNIA

 [Location will be determined soon]


Auburn, CA 95603; ph: 530.888.9600

DTC Systems, Inc.


 Presented by:

Secure Document Research and DTC Systems, Association with the Garfield Continuum and Neil F. Garfield, Esq.

Continue reading “Securitization Workshop for Attorneys January 29th 2011 in Los Angeles”

World Savings Bank, A Living Legacy of the Subprime Crisis

World Savings Bank, A Living Legacy of the Subprime Crisis

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

World Savings Bank loans were the worst of the worst loans that were packaged up and sold to homeowners from the 1990’s until 2008.  These loans consisted of pick a pay loans with negative amortization.  Typical predatory negative amortization loans allow for the original loan balance to increase to 110% maximum.  Meaning if the loan was originally issued at $100,000.00, the loan balance can keep going negative until it reaches $110,000.00.   World Savings Bank decided that this wasn’t enough and allowed their negative amortization loans to reach 125% of the original principal balance.  This is the gift that keeps on giving.  As home values have been decimated by the meltdown and continue to drop, properties with World Savings Bank loans have principal balances that keep going up and up and up.  No underwriting was given on these loans, the value of the properties and the promise and belief they would ever rise was the only consideration given to support the loan.  The other consideration used in “lending” the money had nothing to do with the homeowners.  World Savings Bank wanted to entice investors into parting with their money.  Lots of money.  In fact BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars.  It turns out that World Savings Bank had NO STAKE in the transaction, they were only the middleman.  One big fat rich middleman.  This was at the expense of both borrowers and investors who purchased certificates from the many REMICs setup by World Savings Bank.  What REMICs?  What securitizations?  Didn’t Wells Fargo tell you that these loans were securitized?   Why does the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the OCC) allow Wells Fargo Bank to foreclose in their own name on the tens of thousands of World Savings Bank foreclosures?  The OCC knows much more than the American people what World Savings Bank, Wachovia and Wells Fargo Bank are doing to the American homeowners.  Namely that Wells Fargo Bank is walking into court claiming to be the real party in interest, claiming that they own these loans and that they were never securitized.   Of course this is nothing new for Wells Fargo Bank or Wachovia.  Just look at the auto loans securitized by Wachovia Dealer Services.  Wachovia Dealer Services did not loan the money as these were table funded automobile loans.  The money used to fund the automobile loans came from various trusts that pooled the loans and sold them to investors.  The trusts and/or the investors allegedly own the loans and not Wachovia Dealer Services or Wells Fargo Bank.  But you would never know this by going to just about any state court in this country and looking at who the plaintiff is thats filing a judicial lawsuit on these automobile loans: Wachovia Dealer Services.  Reading the Prospectus for these deals is a real eye opener:  Title will remain in the name of Wachovia Dealer Services and even though the loans are sold, the abstract of title given to the DMV will not be updated to reflect the correct ownership.  They go on to admit that title has not been perfected and that the certificateholders are at risk.  It even goes on to say that the loan contracts will not be updated to reflect that ownership has changed (endorsement under state UCC laws).  So you have no endorsement and no transfer (no perfection).  The beneficial and equitable rights have been sold.  The above all describes predatory banking, lending and servicing at its worst.

Continue reading “World Savings Bank, A Living Legacy of the Subprime Crisis”