Perils of Pooling

Neil_GarfieldPerils of Pooling

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The following article was posted by Neil F. Garfield of and comes from the following URL:

Perils of Pooling

Posted on July 30, 2013 by Neil Garfield

We hold these truths to be self evident: that Chase never acquired any loans from Washington Mutual and that Bank of America never acquired any loans from Countrywide.  A review of the merger documents approved by the FDIC reveals that neither Chase nor Bank of America wanted to assume any liabilities in connection with the lending operations of Washington Mutual or Countrywide, respectively. The loans were expressly left out of the agreement which is available for everyone to see on the FDIC website in the reading room.

Continue reading “Perils of Pooling”

Failure to Allege Lack of Default

Edstrom_MortgageSecuritization_POSTER_17_x_22_v4_1Failure to Allege Lack of Default

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

One of the main reasons many cases do not make it to daylight is because of the failure to allege lack of default.  Despite many lawyers knowing that this is the case, and that there is no default, many still fail to make the allegation.  On what basis can a lawyer allege lack of default for a homeowner facing foreclosure?

The Note and Security Instrument

The note is not the obligation but evidence of the obligation (for proof of this, in many cases the security instrument refers to the note as the evidence of the obligation).  Lawyers usually describe the obligation arising when one party accepts money from another party.  The note usually describes who the parties are that are obligated in the section titled OBLIGATIONS OF PERSONS UNDER THIS NOTE.  This section of the note states:

If more than one person signs this Note, each person is fully and personally obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note, including the promise to pay the full amount owed.  Any person who is a guarantor, surety or endorser of this Note is also obligated to do these things.  Any person who takes over these obligations, including the obligations of a guarantor, surety or endorser of this note, is also obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note.  The Note Holder may enforce its rights under this Note against each person individually or against all of us together.  This means that any one of us may be required to pay all of the amounts owed under this Note.

Continue reading “Failure to Allege Lack of Default”

BB&T Fraudulently Declares Default – Florida Court Orders FDIC Payments From Loss-Share Agreements to be Credited to Borrowers Loan

BB&T Fraudulently Declares Default – Florida Court Orders FDIC Payments From Loss-Share Agreements to be Credited to Borrowers Loan

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thanks to Neil F. Garfield and the LivingLies Blog for this ruling.   The following are excerpts from Judge Levens orders.

Findings of Fact

This case involves a $5,182,128.00 commercial loan made by Colonial Bank to Kraz for the purpose of building and developing a mini-storage and flex space warehouse in Hillsborough County, Florida. Kearney and Harris signed limited personal guaranties of payment and performance and injected in excess of 2 million dollars of cash/equity into the venture. This subject loan was one of several loans made by Colonial Bank to Kearney and Harris and related entities with multiple other guarantors, but the subject loan was not tied to or related to any other such loans.

The terms of the subject loan provided for payment of interest only for the first twentyfour (24) months. Plaintiff was required to provide written notice of the change from interest-only payments to principal-and-interest payment, but, for whatever reason, Plaintiff never provided such notice. Colonial, due to its own internal financial distress, and while Defendants were current on all payments, began improperly demanding that Defendants make curtailment payments on the loan. Colonial improperly based such curtailment demands on the status of other, unrelated loans (which happened to have a variety of principals, obligators, guarantors, etc.).

Colonial was shut down by the Alabama State Banking Department and the FDIC was appointed its Receiver. The FDIC then assigned and sold the assets of Colonial to Plaintiff through a Purchase and Assumption Agreement (“PSA”), which makes Plaintiff the lawful owner and holder of the subject loan documents.

The evidence adduced at trial and considered by the court demonstrated that Plaintiff breached it duties of good faith and fair dealing in its contractual relationship with Defendants. The evidence also demonstrated that Plaintiff was motivated to behave in such as manner as a direct result of the PSA; that is, Plaintiff stood to profit by declaring a fraudulent default under the subject loan, collecting from the FDIC under the PSA for such default, and then enforcing the subject loan against Defendants, and retaining the property until such time as a real estate turnaround occurred in hopes to dispose of the property at the peak of the market. In fact, Mr. Bruni testified that Plaintiff may have already applied to the FDIC for a loss share payment on this loan. And Defendants’ expert, Jim Howard, explained that it was possible Plaintiff could have already applied for and received a payment from the FDIC on this loan, perhaps in an amount as high as $1,800,000.00. Notably, Plaintiff nowhere credited such potential payment from the FDIC against the amounts sought in the instant litigation; thereby giving the impression that Plaintiff might be “double dipping”, and possibly “triple dipping” if market conditions favorably change and the property likewise increases in value. Continue reading “BB&T Fraudulently Declares Default – Florida Court Orders FDIC Payments From Loss-Share Agreements to be Credited to Borrowers Loan”