Anger Growing Over the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s Regulation of National Banks
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
Instead of regulating the national banks as they have been mandated, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) appears to actually be promoting the outrageous behavior of the banks. According to various groups, “Right now, more than 500 people are making lots of noise outside the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency – the worst bank regulator that you never heard of. They are demanding that the OCC stop throwing homeowners under the bus in the their tireless efforts to protect the big banks.”
Apparently the OCC does not know that citizens are using the Internet to understand what they are doing. The OCC believes it can stand up against the very people of this country that it was specifically designed to protect – the citizens who are being used as pawns. The people are being taken for a ride by the national banks who are and have been operating outside of their authority for many years (at least 5 years, probably much longer). How can the banks be operating outside of their authority? When they operate against public policy, including when they have inadequate risk measurements in place and inadequate internal controls. This is obvious from their actions over the last 5 years – including the use of robo-signers, flagrant notary violations, inadequate affidavits and declarations, etc., etc. The list goes on and on, but this is nothing new to the OCC. After all, they have given legal opinions based on this very information. They know exactly what is going on but apparently refuse to act – or are completely incompetent. Because they are doing the very opposite of what they have given in their legal opinions, it is apparent that they are not incompetent, but are refusing to enforce their very own regulations. Continue reading “Anger Growing Over the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s Regulation of National Banks”
Support Cameron/Baxter Films in support of Foreclosure Defense!
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
HELP KICKSTART the Foreclosure Crisis film “COPS ‘n ROBBERS vs THE PEOPLE: the Death and Rebirth of the American Dream”. Taking the High Road. This is a movie of the People, by the People, for the People. Join our Kickstarter.com backer community and INSPIRE AMERICA to its higher conscience! VALENTINE’S DAY DEADLINE. FEB. 14! http://kck.st/hLX9W5
Monterey S.P. Partnership v. W. L. Bangham, Inc. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 454 , 261 Cal.Rptr. 587; 777 P.2d 623
Here is a quick overview of what happens in a non-judicial foreclosure. If you are in a judicial state, this post does not apply directly to your case. But if you understand what happens in a non-judicial foreclosure, you may get insight into what might apply to your case.
I am not indicating that any of these documents are true or accurate, just that this is what typically happens.
Closing the Transaction
The homeowner executes a note and security instrument (i.e. Deed of Trust). The parties to the trust created by the Deed of Trust are the trustor (homeowner), trustee (usually a title company) and the beneficiary (either MERS or the named lender). Everyone seems to assume that the trust was constituted (created), that it is valid and continuing. This is where the trouble begins (not really, but for this article we will assume it begins here and not before).
Notice of Default
Supposedly the Notice of Default is recorded and sent to the homeowner by the agent for the beneficiary. Who is the beneficiary? Looking at my notice of default the only beneficiary mentioned is MERS. However, other documents sent usually point to one or more other parties who “might” be a beneficiary.
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.
Katherine Porter, visiting professor of bankruptcy, consumer finance & secured credit at the Harvard Law School
Daniel Edstrom, head of the securitization auditing firm DTC-Systems
Securitization issues related to foreclosures and paperwork is discussed.
Katherine Porter states that Wrongful foreclosure is when the house is foreclosed on and there is no default. This is an interesting definition because in nearly all cases in securitization, the loans are current. The obligation is not in default because the Securitization Trustee and the investors have received all payments. So nearly all Securitization foreclosures are wrongful foreclosures? That is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to look at.
Why are the loans current in securitization? Because the servicers and securitization trustees are required and obligated to make the payments whether or not they receive the payment from the homeowner.
asset purchases via pomo
New York Branch of the Federal Reserve