Tag: servicers

Control Fraud


Control Fraud

By: Jim Macklin
Secure Document Research

The term “control Fraud” was originally coined by Professor William Black, UMKC. A control fraud essentially starts as a core methodology for the exaction of some enterprise or movement, whether in commerce or at law. The instigators of a control fraud typically have their own self-interests as the motivation for participants to either ignore regulations or laws, or worse yet, to politically pressure or lobby for policy change that suits their agenda(s).

It mattered not that “liar loans”, defective underwriting processes, and securitization obviations were the norm during the run-up to 2008. The control fraud was in place to facilitate complete immunity from prosecution for the big money players at the top of Wall St. Every associated business that derived its income from the mortgage-backed bond sales was expected to follow the guidelines, as set by the fraudsters, or suffer the fate of not working. Everyone from bond insurers, hedge fund managers, realtors and property appraisers had to bend to the poisonous curve…or lose their competitive edge, and thus, their livelihood. When lying becomes the standard upon which your paycheck relies, you are a liar by proxy.

Continue reading “Control Fraud”

Independent Foreclosure Review Engagement Letters

Independent Foreclosure Review Engagement Letters

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has posted the following on its website (http://www.occ.gov/topics/consumer-protection/foreclosure-prevention/independent-review-foreclosure-letters.html).

Independent Foreclosure Review Engagement Letters

Below are links to engagement letters submitted by the independent consultants, retained by servicers regulated by the OCC, who will be conducting foreclosure reviews pursuant to the requirements of the April 13, 2011 consent orders.  The engagement letters describe how the independent consultants will conduct their file reviews and claims processes to identify borrowers who suffered financial injury as a result of servicer deficiencies identified in the OCC’s consent orders.

Limited proprietary and personal information has been redacted from the engagement letters.  Examples of information that has been redacted include, but are not limited to: names, titles and biographies of individuals; proprietary systems information; references to specific bank policy; fees and costs associated with the engagement; and specific descriptions of past work performed by the independent consultants.

Since the acceptance of the engagement letters in September of this year, the independent consultants have further refined and made adjustments to the processes, procedures, and methodologies outlined in the engagement letters in consultation with OCC supervision staff.  Therefore, in many cases the review processes being implemented may differ in some respects from those described in the engagement letters because of subsequent coordination with the OCC.  In particular, there were a number of changes made to integrated claims process to ensure a single, uniform process among the servicers.

Pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 4.12(c), the disclosure of the engagement letters at the OCC’s election has no precedential significance.

Title Crisis – Part II – The Documents used to Foreclose are Fraudulent

Title Crisis – Part II – The Documents used to Foreclose are Fraudulent

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The following was just posted on Neil Garfield’s blog, livinglies.wordpress.com.  It is reposted here with the following comments.  These are fabricated documents placed into the title record at the county recorders.  In non-judicial states these documents do not need to be recorded to foreclose as those foreclosing can instead file a judicial foreclosure and prove their claim.  Because they have no claim and cannot prove it, they knowingly, willingly and without any regard for the consequences, choose to corrupt the land title records instead.  To read about this choice, read the Hooker vs. BofA ruling from a Federal District Court judge out of Oregon: Hooker-v-BofA_and_MERS – Congratulations to Oregon Attorney James Stout for his work on this case.

From Neil Garfield and Lynn Szymoniak (see Lynn Szymoniak in action on 60 Minutes here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20049744-10391709.html)

EDITOR’S NOTE (Neil Garfield): We know the foreclosures were gross misrepresentations of fact to the Courts, to the Borrowers and to the Investors. This article shows the crossover between the MegaBanks — sharing and diluting the responsibility for these fabrications as they went along. If you are talking about one big bank you are talking about all the megabanks. Continue reading “Title Crisis – Part II – The Documents used to Foreclose are Fraudulent”

Oregon Does it to MERS Again

Oregon Does it to MERS Again

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Once again MERS is hammered, this time in Federal District Court by the Honorable Owen M. Panner.  This judge understands clearly what is going on and has some serious questions.  Read this case to understand securitization and foreclosures.  Here are some highlights (there are many others):

Should the beneficiary choose to initiate non-judicial foreclosure proceedings, the Act’s recording requirements mandate the recording of any assignments of the beneficial interest in the trust deed.

Nobody held a gun to the head of the servicers and required them to use non-judicial foreclosure.  They have the right to choose which action they wish to use – non-judicial or judicial.  The problem in this case (and almost all other cases), is that the servicers are making the wrong choices.  Why?  Money, what else?.  It is not their concern that they don’t qualify to use non-judicial foreclosures.  It is not their concern that they have to strictly comply with statutes.  In 90% or more of all cases the homeowners are walking away so nobody will know anyway right?  Oops, now the titles have to be cleaned up because of the mess left behind by the servicers, which have all but destroyed the title records for foreclosed properties.  This means that in the future, somebody else will have to file a judicial lawsuit to clean up the title for a property because the servicer made the wrong choice and failed to strictly comply with non-judicial statutes.  By the way this problem is understated and far worse than anyone actually imagines or understands at this point.

Continue reading “Oregon Does it to MERS Again”

Realized Losses in Securitization

Realized Losses in Securitization

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

It is of interest to note that no loss is calculated in securitized transactions until the loan is liquidated.  It is also of value to note that usually the principal and interest is advanced until the loan is liquidated (as I saw in a case where it was stated by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company in an answer to discovery).  So principal and interest payments are made by the servicers and/or trustees, and no loss is actually realized until after the house is foreclosed upon and sold to a 3rd party.  So what came first, the default or the loss?  No default occurs until the loan is liquidated, which doesn’t occur until after the foreclosure sale.  This means the homes are sold while the loans are current.  I would venture to say that nearly ALL foreclosures in at least the last 10 years on homes with securitized transactions, have been fraudulent and invalid.  This is because the paperwork used to foreclose is VOID.  Not voidable, but VOID.

Take a look at these definitions from the Argent Securities Inc. 2003-W6 Trust:

State Principal Balance
As to any mortgage loan or manufactured housing contract, the principal balance of the mortgage loan or manufactured housing contract as of the cut-off date, after application of all scheduled principal payments due on or before the cut-off date, whether or not received, reduced by all amounts, including advances by the master servicer, allocable to principal that are distributed to securityholders on or before the date of determination, and as further reduced to the extent that any realized loss thereon has been, or had it not been covered by a form of credit support, would have been, allocated to one or more classes of securities on or before the determination date.

Advance
As to any Mortgage Loan or REO Property, any advance made by the Master Servicer or a successor Master Servicer in respect of any Distribution Date representing the aggregate of all payments of principal and interest, net of the Servicing Fee, that were due during the related Due Period on the Mortgage Loans and that were delinquent on the related Determination Date, plus certain amounts representing assumed payments not covered by any current net income on the Mortgaged Properties acquired by foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure as determined pursuant to Section 4.03.

Determination Date
With respect to each Distribution Date, the 10th day of the calendar month in which such Distribution Date occurs or, if such 10th day is not a Business Day, the Business Day immediately preceding such 10th day.

Continue reading “Realized Losses in Securitization”