This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

An Example Of Bank Of America Refusing To Provide An Original Mortgage Note

Tyler Durden's picture


Two months ago, there were a variety of campaigns launched to get the mass public to demand from their bank an original, wet ink signature note for their mortgage. Many of these fizzled out. That said, we would like to present one instance of Bank of America responding negatively to just such a demand by a Zero Hedge reader, in which the bank's Home Loans unit outright refuses to provide the requested information hiding behind a lack of affirmative responsibility. Specifically, the response from the Qualified Written Request Group notes: "you cite no legal authority that supports your claim that you are entitled to view the original Note, and we are not aware of the existence of any such authority. Accordingly BAC Home Loans respectfully declines this request. If you wish to pursue this matter further, please provide such legal authority." In other words, banks continue to hide behind a legal defense that ultimately involves the jurisdiction of various (if not all) state attorneys general. In the meantime, odds are (99%) that the bank has absolutely no copy of the original and should the reader proceed to default (in a judicial state), the bank will likely ultimately be forced to give up its claim on the mortgage. And one wonders why the TBTF banks (especially BofA, Wells and JPM) are doing all they can to promptly bring the AGs under their fold (regardless of "cost") before all hell breaks loose should the required "legal authority" be provided through case law.


We urge readers who have received comparable responses from their bank, to submitted a properly redacted response to us, following which we will compile all the responses and send them to all highly corrupt legal authorities in very public fashion.

Additionally, for those to whom this is insufficient, here is a form letter (note: prepared by the SEIU) addressed to the appropriate just as corrupt Attorney General - link. Should readers not wish to provide their information to the SEIU's database, we are confident there are enough form letters floating in the Internet to make this a simple task.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 01/17/2011 - 19:44 | 882857 prophet
prophet's picture

Chase and military service member issues!  and their home page promoting their special services.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:11 | 882910 Pladizow
Pladizow's picture

Anybody done any serious research on



Tue, 01/18/2011 - 01:02 | 883457 Malcolm Tucker
Malcolm Tucker's picture

Here is a Chilean telling David Rockefeller that he's not welcome in Chile:

Maybe it has something to do with the alleged Pinochet collaborator who gets in the car with him!

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 14:30 | 884531 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

The Mortgage Bankers Association strategically defaulted on their own mortgage, of an office building in D.C., because they were able to rent for 1/3 the cost of the monthly mortgage payment down the street in a similar building...

...this is after they had a run a national TV Ad campaign about how strategically defaulting was unethical.



Daily Show: Cenac - Mortgage Bankers Association Strategic Default The Mortgage Bankers Association strategically defaults on its loan after shaming homeowners who do the same.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:02 | 883008 Precious
Precious's picture

All you people with mortgages. Tell BofA no problem.  

But for your next payment, just send them a copy of your fucking check and tell them to eat shit.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:09 | 883016 DonnieD
DonnieD's picture


Mon, 01/17/2011 - 22:34 | 883208 Triggernometry
Triggernometry's picture

Or perhaps send in a letter questioning BoA's legal authority in servicing a mortgage for which they don't have a wet ink note. The letter should be well spoken, calm, and polite in reminding the bank they stand to lose from lack of legal authority, not you. Remember to throw in a "dictated but not read" at the end, just to fuck with them.

Fuck Wank of America

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 22:39 | 883215 Everyman
Everyman's picture

Well played Precious.

"my Precious"

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 07:47 | 883624 nmewn
nmewn's picture

They might send back a picture of a cardboard box...LOL.

I would say attack it under the seventh amendment...but with all the assaults on the Bill of Rights there is a ten day waiting period now with a background check...and you can only bring so many suits within thirty days...and then there is the amounts of the mortgage, because no one really needs a 600K dollar mortgage ;-)

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 00:05 | 883364 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

In almost every jurisdiction, it is required that original documents be furnished in order to prosecute a legal claim, and only in relatively rare instances do courts allow photocopied or reproduced instruments to be used. But I am confident that Bank of America's attorneys fully know this, yet hope as few people as possible realize it.

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 05:33 | 883589 Drag Racer
Drag Racer's picture

and now for something not completely different...

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 11:35 | 884000 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

See, everyone, the proof is in the pudding.

Thanks for posting that article.

"Loans from 05, 06 and 07 are being put back to the bank."

If anything, that Bloomberg article soft sells the scope of the crisis for banks and mortgage originators; that paper could have been originated in years well before 05, 06 or 07, and it would have been sold during the great mortgage bundle stuffing and MERS explosion upon hungry investor pools during the great credit boom spawned by the real estate boom and agents and re-agents like Goldman and Morgan from 2004 to 2007, where trillions in mortgages were sold and run through 'electronic intermediaries' or other conduits, with original paperwork being lost, ostensibly forever.

The shit hasn't even hit the fan yet.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 19:47 | 882862 Dr. Porkchop
Dr. Porkchop's picture

Show me the note, motherfucker!

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:03 | 882895 Pladizow
Pladizow's picture

There must be some legal standing to see the original note, right?

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:42 | 883048 Red Neck Repugnicant
Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

Often, there is one difference between the original, un-photocopied/scanned contract and all other copies: the existence of possible high-lighting by the mortgage officer.  These neon yellow marks would only be visible on the original paper, which is the exact copy that you are looking for. They are invisible when photocopied and/or scanned. 

So now you need to create a case that would require the need to see if the original paper was high-lighted, something that none of the other scanned copies would reveal.

You or your lawyer would argue that the mortgage officer had 100+ documents requiring 200+ signatures, and all of them were high-lighted.  You were told to "just follow the high-lights," as the pages were just continually flipped in front of you.  Not only were pages not thoroughly detailed for you, but the high-lights distracted your eye from the "truth in lending" information.  You were "led".

Furthermore, the reason that BofA sent you your payment history is to create a case of "if there was fraud, why did you make all these payments?"

To that, you reply:  I knew the monthly payments, but I did not understand how all the payments added up which is detailed in the "truth in lending section" - something that was never reviewed with me. I'm not a contract lawyer, so I was just doing what I was being told, "follow the high-lights".  Sometimes one doesn't know they've been defrauded until after it happens, you mother fuckers!



Mon, 01/17/2011 - 22:17 | 883167 Precious
Precious's picture

Q: "If there was fraud, why did you make all these payments?"


A: "Listen you lifeless, minimum wage turd, you're lucky I'm even talking to a mindless troll like you.  But to give you an honest answer, I JUST DISCOVERED THE FRAUD, YOU FUCKING NUMBNUTS ! "

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 08:57 | 883684 whatz that smell
whatz that smell's picture

ex post facto, bitchez!

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 11:00 | 883885 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Fraudulent concealment is a fairly difficult standard in many jurisdictions.  Essentially, you cannot continue to make payments and never ask for the note...  and then some years later say, I WANNA SEE THE NOTE NOW DAMNIT!  I'VE BEEN DEFRAUDED?!?  In other words, you should have been provided a copy of the note at closing...  and a copy is likely available from the closing company...  you've had years to read the document you signed and file a suit to correct it.  You slumbered on your rights...  that is not fraudulent concealment.

If you possess the reasonable means to discover a fraud, you have an affirmative duty to utilize those means to uncover the fraud or else waive your right to contest it.

Now, whether or not you may see/contest an assignment of the note is likely governed by the terms and conditions stated in your original note (and other law)..  and, further, making payments after you have been notified of an assignment is tantamount to waiver...  if you wanted to contest an assignment, that you knew about (they usually send letters and tell you who differently to start paying), then you should have done that before you started sending payments...

Further, fraudulent concealment is only a device for getting past the statute of limitations...  often times, depending on when you consummated the transaction, you're not going to be past the time in which you can still file a myriad of lawsuits (e.g. breach of contract, fraud, etc.).  Also, some types of action, e.g. equitable, really have no formal period of limitations... 

The proper angle, I think, is per the ibanez case...  tackle the issue of clear title, not the right of the servicer to collect payments...  they are intertwined and likely one in the same, in the end, but you have likely waived one...  opt for plan b and keep trudging.

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 11:45 | 884008 Red Neck Repugnicant
Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

You make valid points, however let me add/ask a few things.

So many of these mortgages were unconventional ones, where the terms change quite dramatically three or five years after the signing; a contract that changes terms after a period of time should weaken the "why did you wait so long?" defense.  Wouldn't it be reasonable to argue that you had no reason to believe you had been defrauded for the years leading up to the "reset". Once the reset occurred, that is when you had discovered that the terms where not what you had originally believed.  The payment made after the "reset" were in good faith until you figured out what your rights were.  Of course, this is assuming that the mortgage in question is an adjustable one, but it appears that millions of the foreclosed houses were.

Secondly, adjustable rate or not, if the bank takes the position that you've argued wouldn't their defense be severely weakened by the fact they can't/won't produce the original paper in question?  If all the cards are on the table, the borrower may have the weaker hand; but if the one card missing from the table is the exact document in question, I believe that blows a fairly significant hole through BofA's defense.  All the scanned/photocopied documents aren't sufficient in this case, since the high-lighted marks are invisible on scanned copies.  This is an argument where the original paper is the only document sufficient in this claim.


Tue, 01/18/2011 - 13:43 | 884337 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

First, no.  Whether you refuse to read a contract you signed today, tomorrow, or five years from now is likely of little effect.  Your reason to believe you have been defrauded is that you did not know what your contract stated...  however, refusing to read the document and, further, slumbering on any right to read the document/make any effort to see it while making payments for years, is likely going to get the court's foot planted squarely in your behind.  If the statute of limitations has not run, then file your claim...  but concealment has not occurred...

Second, it depends on the action.  If the bank is foreclosing and the jurisdiction requires the original to foreclose (generally they do not and, if they do, there are alternative measures to implement if the original has been lost), then it may be an issue.  However, if you are proactively seeking to rid yourself of any liens on your property and/or your note, then a copy should suffice.  In other words, the enforcement of the note is a separate issue from whether foreclosure may be pursued.  As a result, whether or not the servicer can cough up the original is likely of differing concern to the court.

The biggest issue in the robostamping scandal is that they refused to utilize already available mechanisms in the court system to achieve their intended goals.  In short, they simply tried to push through foreclosures, without the requisite formalities, rather than take a longer path they brought upon themselves...  there are a myriad of ways they can still foreclose prospectively...  but, given their apparently review of the matter, it is cost prohibitive or they are simply rolling the dice...  who knows.  However, there are legal avenues to which they can still operate...  in other words, there is more than one way to skin a cat (zombie).  [zombie cannabalism].

Further, it is the Plaintiff's job to prove his case.  If he claims there is a highlighted document out there, but the Defendant refuses to produce it/says it does not exist/etc., then the Plaintiff is going to have a hard time proving it.  There may be a presumption against the Defendant in the event the evidence is deemed to be withheld, etc., but that's probably a coin toss.  Here, the homeowner would be caught in the same trap the banks are as plaintiffs in foreclosure actions...  in essence, they do not have the documents to prove their claims, respectively, as brought, unless patently against truth in lending, etc.

If someone called me and said they thought they were the victim of fraud, under these circumstances, I would not likely take the case on contingency...  maybe if we got a slamdunk statutory violation...  but on fraud, etc., I wouldn't touch it.

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 13:24 | 884333 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

Fraud can only be waived, if ever, via failing to raise it as an affirmative defense in responsive pleadings, through the appropriate statute of limitations, or via an affirmative act by the party alleging it which furthers or assists the fraud.

I'm not quite certain how you're arriving at your conclusion that fraud is somehow magically negated, because a party to a fraud has an affirmative duty to immediately (and I'll paraphrase)  do something about a fraud perpetuated as soon as discovery of said fraud takes places.

I suppose this argument would be better suited if one were to use the 'at a point when a reasonably prudent person' should have discovered a fraud/act, and then, in the context of mitigation of damages.

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 13:46 | 884375 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

you need to actually read what I wrote...  I was talking about fraudulent concealment, not fraud...  big difference.  Fraud has a statute of limitations, just like about everything else, and it has not been tolled by this issue.  That was my point.  The signer of the note has always been privy to its contents...

here is an excerpt:

Further, fraudulent concealment is only a device for getting past the statute of limitations...  often times, depending on when you consummated the transaction, you're not going to be past the time in which you can still file a myriad of lawsuits (e.g. breach of contract, fraud, etc.).  Also, some types of action, e.g. equitable, really have no formal period of limitations...

In short, they might have been defrauded (only way of proving is through parol evidence, i.e. long shot), but the sol on fraud is running.  Fish or cut bait.


Tue, 01/18/2011 - 14:16 | 884438 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

How is parol evidence the "only" way to prove fraud? Discovery can be taken which pinpoints the time of a fraudulent act by deeds (pun intended? I don't know, but it works).

More importantly, the point of fraud in this case is arguably when the party receiving mortgage payments receives each and every payment, or when representing, implicitly or at least expressly that it holds the mortgage in a bona fide fashion, despite not holding the actual mortgage as a secured asset and instrument, and not at the point of origination of the mortgage.

Finally, every jurisdiction that I'm aware of has a 'discovery rule' on fraud, which at least extends the time to file a legal suit premised on any count sounding in fraud (in some jurisdictions, by a minimum of 2 years from discovery with a caveat of no more than 10 years from the actual act of fraud, or something similar), and in many jurisdictions, it tolls the statute of limitation until actual discovery of the fraud takes place.

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 15:12 | 884674 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

I find the best way to have a discussion is to not presume the other side is an idiot.  In this sense, my comments on parol evidence must be put into the context of the facts at hand and the scenario premised...  once you do this, I think you'll get your answer.  In short, it was not a universal statement.

The person accepting payments merely represents they are the servicer of the loan.  It is not fraud if the party collecting payment ensures that the payments are applied to the right party.  Further, we have to differentiate between recording requirements for liens on real property and the assignment of notes...  the former is, generally speaking, much more rigid and unforgiving.  The assignment of a note may very well be valid, while at the same time invalidating the mortgage or, alternatively, rendering it unenforceable.  In short, proving the loan servicer had the intent to defraud is going to be a stretch, especially considering nothing in any of the cases or other matters in our discussion that the payments received by the servicer have not been applied to the homeowner's balance.  In other words, the servicer would be faced with fraud only to the extent it refused to indemnify the homeowner for the payments the servicer has received.  In other words, the servicer, in our example, is doing what a servicer should do and it appears the homeowner is receiving credit for the payments....  damages, among other things, are a prerequisite for fraud.

The discovery rule on fraud requires the party proclaiming a tolling of the statute of limitations to have undertaken reasonable efforts to uncover the fraud.  Refusing to read the contract you sign is NOT reasonable.  This is why statutory schemes, such as truth in lending, were required to fill in the gap...  In short, issues about variable rate mortgages, etc., are being time barred daily...  Further, in the event a new servicer proclaims its status and you continue paying said servicer for a number of months without contesting its status, I have serious reservations about the validity of a fraud claim.  I would think waiver/ratification would be at the forefront of any reasonable defense attorney's arsenal.  Just because it becomes the popular thing to do and other people have discovered the issues with assignment, doesn't mean that you have acted reasonably with respect to your servicer and enforcing your rights and they may be time barred...

Here is a chart on states' respective discovery rules...  At first blush, I think your numbers are exagerrated.  

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 16:07 | 884875 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

As a friend and very sharp mentor once told me, after I had written a treatise on a subject that could have been effectively dealt with in a sentence or two, "you are greatly complicating this matter unnecessarily."

There is no affirmative duty to look for and root out particular acts of fraud in order to have either a defense or affirmative legal claim. In all but the most egregious cases of something akin to blatant fraud in the inducement, fraudulent acts could very well be stealthy and lied dormant and unknown to even the most prudent of people.

With that said, this mortgage issue between mortgagee/servicer and mortgagor is being derailed by discussion of fraud. Fraud isn't a necessary element to prove with respect to either defenses or affirmative claims in mortgage foreclosure proceedings or title actions where the original mortgage can't be produced in open court.

What is far more central are issues of title, recordation and assignment, all done in proper, legal conformance with statutes and other authority under state law.

And that's where any entity professing that is holds title to any real property, but that can't produce an original instrument evidencing proof of ownership, and that can't, on top of this, show that it properly and duly recorded same in a manner prescribed by law, will run into problems.

Talk of fraud is a detour on the road construing the real issues of Fraudclosure.

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 18:49 | 885507 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Although I have already stated most of this myself above, the issue is not that simple.  Overturning a foreclosure judgment, in general, is going to require fraud upon the court to have occurred, thus making the order void ab initio, thereby releasing the requirement of showing a meritorious defense by moving party (I could have paid my mortgage, I swear).

Fraud in executing the loan documents in the first place is water under the bridge.  My guess is that folks have slumbered on their rights and are time barred for the most part.  Presuming it is fraud that is even the cause of action, as opposed to a truth in lending or other cause.

You claim that there is no affirmative duty to look for and root out particular acts of fraud, but this is not remotely being objective about the issue.  One of the requirements for someone alledging fraud is that they must prove their reliance was reasonable under the circumstances.  In this case, that means actually reading the note...  or, alternative, in the case of an assignment of the note, it means asking the servicer to show you the documents of assignment BEFORE you start paying the servicer. 

Yes, I completely agree that fraudulent acts can be stealthy and lie dormant...  hence the tolling of the statute of limitations for fraudulent concealment...  however, this concept has not been applied to the facts at hand...  where failure to do any due diligence and wander zombified and aimlessly through the world is nothing short of waiver/ratification.

In short, fraud is important in the analysis of the impact of fraudclosure, depending on the area of your analysis...  and most certainly spans material issues.

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 22:47 | 886126 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture


I do not understand your seeming obsession with fraud as it pertains to foreclosure issues du jour.

The only real issue that is relevant, and in almost all cases, central, as between mortgagors and those seeking judicial foreclosure is whether the mortgagee can provide the original mortgage to the trier of fact, that has been properly recorded, or not.

If not, whether because the mortgage was synthesized or assigned, in whole or part, to secondary purchaser of mortgage debt, and if an end run around traditional and proper recordation channels regarding mortgages were undertaken (including but not limited to the use of MERS), then there is a viable claim or defense on the part of the mortgagor that there is no standing to foreclose, because the party seeking foreclosure is not a bona fide owner of the note and therefore not a party in 'due course.'

Why would there have to be any showing of any fraud, period?

This is a simple title issue as between the party seeking foreclosure and the mortgagee/'homeowner.'

Is the term 'fraudclosure,' used widely in the media and across headlines, the reason you are insisting on a showing of fraud in any of these cases?

The issue of fraud has far more relevance in the context of the foreclosure crisis in terms of the chain of events as between mortgage sellers and mortgage investors/buyers, as the mortgage investors/buyers not able to foreclose on what were presented as securitized properties discover that without an original mortgage instrument in hand, their ability to foreclose on defaulted mortgages has been impeded.

Wed, 01/19/2011 - 00:48 | 886403 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

I dunno, I'm going to go out on a limb here...  this might seem outlandish to you...  but the posters we are replying to were discussing fraud...  I guess I'll try harder to insert a nonsequitor next time.

Further, we have to differentiate between those foreclosures that have already occurred and those that may prospectively occur...  in other words, in order to vacate the foreclosure judgment obtained against me, I need to show bank X perpetrated a ___________________ on the court.  For prospective foreclosures, there are many things the assignees can do to ensure they are capable of foreclosing, such as to conduct their own declaratory action prior to foreclosing to determine who the proper party to foreclose might be...  hence the fear regarding improperly handled foreclosures...  not so much with prospective foreclosures (although, they carry their own downsides, such as likely admitting to securities violations/fraud).

In addition, I'm not sure why you keep insisting on taking my statements out of context...  it's happened with multiple replies now...  each being pointed out along the way...  and, frankly, it's not helping to fruitfully progress the discussion.  For example, "I do not understand your seeming obsession with fraud as it pertains to foreclosure issues du jour."  In reply to "In short, fraud is important in the analysis of the impact of fraudclosure, depending on the area of your analysis".  Clearly, du jour if I've ever seen it...

Again, fraud is an important component of our analysis of the impact of fraudclosure...  it is not the only issue in which to analyze...  it is one of many, but depending on the area of your analysis, its materiality changes...  It is very material to some issues, not so much for others...  Fraudclosure is incredibly complex, multi faceted, and will take many, many years to litigate.  Ignoring fraud renders any macro analysis of the impact of fraudclosure near sighted at best.

Wed, 01/19/2011 - 00:54 | 886414 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

Thank you for that civil response. I agree that many are focusing on the issue of fraud, whereas it may be a marginal issue in the grand scheme of things (although not completely irrelevant, as you point out), and I understand now why you were addressing it at such length (in response to so many comments about it).

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 19:49 | 882867 Cheyenne
Cheyenne's picture

My bank blew off my request as well, so I stopped paying my mortgage. I hope they call me requesting legal authority. I have a flechette gun of it.

After a few more months, I'll gamble the withheld payments in Vegas. I plan to send photos and movies to the bank to get its professional feedback on optimum dime super strategies.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 19:59 | 882886 traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

Buy silver, food, brass first...though I do understand your post was likely sarcastic...

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:05 | 882898 Cheyenne
Cheyenne's picture

I already took care of silver and food. No sarcasm. Totally serious. The bank is already out 12/10 and 1/11 mortgage payments.

I'll happily pay when it coughs up a color copy of the promissory note. Until that happens, fuck them.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:08 | 882904 traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

Oh, I'm totally with you. Was just remarking on the Vegas thing...

I think a wide-spread popular revolt from the banksters and their parasitic and fraudulent ways - ideally leading to a debt jubilee - is exactly what this country needs...

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:13 | 882915 Cheyenne
Cheyenne's picture

No joke there either. My pal John Fox is opening at the Trop's comedy club on Monday 4/25/11. We're working on the screenplay now.

We're driving from Chicago in a Winnebago with a film crew. I'm sick of the banks' shit.

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 10:54 | 883897 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Depending on your jurisdiction, if you want to contest anything, you may need to pony up your note payments into the court's registry...  I'd be sure to have a sinking fund/reserve set up...  of course, if you lose, the prejudgment interest is likely more than anything you will make on the money...  unless you can beat 6%+.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:16 | 882921 GreenSideUp
GreenSideUp's picture


Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:18 | 883036 guestpost
guestpost's picture

i did show me the note too. got a letter from wachovia 3 weeks later asking for proof of insurance, which hasn't changed or lapsed, there was no follow through from US apethetic bitchez and robo signoing seemed to go they ignored me and i ignored them, nothing more.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:57 | 883113 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

Banks with their above-the-law attitudes and screw-the-customer attitudes simply aren't going to do the right thing voluntarily. 

All they care about is money. So the only way to get their attention and motivate them to cooperate is withhold money from them.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 19:50 | 882868 Marc45
Marc45's picture

I am so disappointed in this post.  They didn't refuse to show you the note, only to send you the original.  What is so wrong with a copy?  The post misleads this fact.  If the copy of the note is forged, then BAC is in a lot of trouble.  However, most people remember when they signed something as important as a home mortgage and can recognize their own signature.  I really don't see what the fuss is all about.

This whole idea of hiding behind a technicality so as to avoid paying your mortgage sucks worse than the giant squid that we all know and love.

I'm getting spammed offers from people offering to get me my house back without a mortgage, free and clear despite the fact that I do have a mortgage and I do pay it on time.  WTF is wrong with this one wants any responsibility and everyone wants everything.  You guys are just trying to manufacture a controversy.  I'm disappointed to say the least...

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 19:58 | 882883 Boba Fiat
Boba Fiat's picture

You're misunderstanding the issue.  In my case they are able to show me that I took out a mortgage with Bank X (the original document signed at closing).  However, they CANNOT offer any proof that the note was legally transferred from Bank X to BoA.  Get it?  I want them to verify this, as I am sending them a shitload of money each month.  All they have to prove is that they legally own the note.


They won't give you an "original copy of the Note", but they fool you by offering a "copy of the original Note."  The former would be the current note; the latter is obsolete.  I already have a copy of the original note.  I want a copy of the Note with BoA's fingerprints on it.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:05 | 882899 traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

Eggsactly. A copy of the original note is worthless. You want a copy of the current and properly endorsed note. 

And they hide behind the concept of no legal standing. Why wouldn't/shouldn't a customer be able to verify that they are paying the proper party and that their payments are being appropriately credited? The burden of proof should rightfully rest with the party that holds the note - to show that they do in fact have a legal and appropriate claim on the asset. 

From Mish's blog - interesting reading...

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:07 | 882901 Pladizow
Pladizow's picture

Those who say a copy is as good as the original are ignorant and have obviously not done their due diligence!

Dont bother with a response to these types of posts.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:21 | 882924 Marc45
Marc45's picture

"I already have a copy of the original note.  I want a copy of the Note with BoA's fingerprints on it."


and this give you the option of not paying your mortgage?  I don't get why you feel so entitled to a free ride.  Actually I know why.  It's because the banks are very reluctant to foreclose and take the hit on their balance sheet.  You're just taking advantage of the situation (like the big banks are).  People will justify all sorts of behavior if it suits them, it's the self-righteous attitude that gets me.  I'm still disappointed because in the end an obligation is not being honored and the blame is being diverted.


BTW, if you don't believe they have proof the note was transferred, then why don't you continue making payments to the original holder?

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:26 | 882944 JoeStocks
JoeStocks's picture

Amen!! Marc I am with you on this. Too many freeloaders out there trying to game the system.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:31 | 882955 Marc45
Marc45's picture

Thanks Joe!  I hate the big banks as much as anyone here.  I think BAC should have gone into receivership two years ago.  There are more than a lot of things wrong with the system.

I also think that two wrongs don't make a right.  I pay my debts.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:48 | 882982 traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

It's hard to tell if you are shilling for the banks, or perhaps just don't understand the situation. 

Several blogs have been all over this issue, including ZH a bit, but it hasn't been a huge focus. 

In a nutshell, if the note hasn't been properly transferred, particularly if a securitization trust has been involved (most likely), then the reality is that it would be difficult if not impossible to determine who is the actual legal owner of the note. This has vast implications for not just the 'deadbeats' but also the people currently paying on their notes. Essentially, the chain of title has been broken and any sale, payment, or other transaction is clouded. 

Simply paying the original note holder won't do it either. So who do you pay? And who caused the problem and all of the clouded titles? Was it the borrower? Or the BANKS? So the banks didn't properly perfect their claim to the notes? Long-standing property law says that this is their responsibility. The alternative is that anyone can make a claim on any asset. Good luck with that legal paradigm. 

So, if no one has clear title to your note, who do you pay? Can you ever sell your house? Hmmm...

Oh, and we haven't even touched on MERS... 

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:00 | 883002 Misean
Misean's picture

OH I smell SHILL big time here. Remeber not long ago the bankster funded horseshit campaign to try and guilt people into paying their "debts". Note the last sanctimonious line from the bot tool that posted..."I pay my debts."

Not much else to say but bought and paid advertising from the squid. Pay it no mind.

Finally, just to nail this nonsence shut, if the company you are in debted with real property as collateral goes tits up, then the person claiming you owe them that debt must PROPERLY prove they are what they claim. Show me the note, I'll pay. Quite simple and orderly. It's a simply a contractual obligation...

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 22:06 | 883139 Fred Hayek
Fred Hayek's picture

And here's a very interesting article from Denninger's site about how a condo owner in Utah had his lawyer file a motion to quiet title, essentially to resolve a question of uncertainty about the title for the condo unit.  Unfortunately for the banksters, there really wasn't anyone to notify.   MERS admitted that it doesn't actually have any fiduciary interest in the condo and the title companies cited in documents admitted they don't either.  Nor does the servicer.  The banks have so efficiently obscured the issue of ownership (in order to and in the process of avoiding paying recording fees among other goals) that there's no one to stand up on the side opposite the condo owner!!

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 01:54 | 883496 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

Chain of title breaks @ MERS assignment point, which basically incentivises an entity or individual to seek ownership by adverse suit if there's positive equity, or as is more common now, dissavow liability if there's no or negative equity, if mortgagee can't produce the mortgage in original form.

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 11:04 | 883914 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

The awesome part is that you can just nonsuit your causes of action and likely not have to pay any attorney fees or anything else...  take out a grand or two, fire away with a lawsuit, and gamble they don't have their docs... 

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 23:29 | 883302 rosiescenario
rosiescenario's picture

A+...that's the real problem...if you go to sell how to pass a clear title to the to know that the real noteholder was paid off in full???

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:34 | 883060 Hacksaw
Hacksaw's picture

I hope your mortage wasn't put in a trust because if it was when you pay it off you may not get a clear title to the house.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:50 | 882983 bingocat
bingocat's picture

If BAC is the servicer, don't they get the check anyway? Why was the poster paying BAC until now? Did he have to re-address his checks partway through his mortgage? Does the original stack of papers not say the mortgage payments go to BAC? Not enough detail is provided to say much other than that the poster has a beef, and the original headline is highly misleading.

However, the self-righteousness of people who strategically don't pay because of perceived slights (i.e. "Banks got TARP therefore I don't have to pay my mortgage") is highly disappointing. I could just as well say, "my neighbor lost his job because he wasn't adding enough value to be kept, and so he got to stay at home and receive UE bennies for 99 weeks - I shouldn't pay my mortgage either. WTF?

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 22:44 | 883196 Red Neck Repugnicant
Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

I would probably agree with your sentiment if the bank in question was a local bank doing an honest service to their community. 

However, the big national, insolvent behemoths like BofA have not only gamed/rigged the system to unimaginable levels, they've been able to poach local business away from honest local banks in the process, making it nearly impossible to complete against them. 

Assume a hypothetical example with WalMart for a moment. They've completely decimated the "mom and pop" retail businesses in this country. Survival of the fittest, right? I guess.  But just imagine if you find out that WalMart was subsidized by the government in the process, and it was that implicit government guarantee that allowed them to wipe out the "mom and pop" stores who couldn't compete against government subsidized cheaters.  

In that case, I lose all thoughts of ethics and morality that I'd normally have.  That hypothetical scenario with WalMart is reality with BofA - they can go fuck themselves.  

They're just fucking cheaters, and anything that can be done to keep karma flowing is fine with me, ethical or otherwise. If BofA does business by the sword, they should expect to die by it, as well; cheaters deserve to get cheated. 

Outside of that, you make a reasonable point about gaming the system. 

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:53 | 882990 Boba Fiat
Boba Fiat's picture


Ignorant comment.  When did I say I wanted a free ride?  I pay my mortgage every month.  I want the purported owner of my mortgage to verify that they own it so that, after the mortgage is paid, they can legally transfer ownership to me.  The issue is simple: they can't prove they own the house.  Why would I blindly want to throw my money away? 

And you won't get any pity from me for the bankers.  They stole from the public treasury through TARP.  I want BoA to go under and it's executives imprisoned for fraud and theft at the very least.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:04 | 883010 Terminus C
Terminus C's picture

I regret to inform you that you have been paying your mortgage payments to the wrong party.  From here on in you will send your checks to me at Bank of Terminus C.  You can trust me that I obtained your note legally and will honor the terms therein.

Failure to pay me will force me to forclose on your property forthwith.

By the way, you have no legal standing to check my claim, thank you for your co-operation in advance.




Bank of Terminus C

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:21 | 883038 Andy Lewis
Andy Lewis's picture

Little Timmy, is that you?

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 22:22 | 883179 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

What a pathetic tool you are.

Don't preach to us about the poor fucking banks when they've stolen $20,000,000,000,000 from the United States citizenry.

These greed-addled banker-gangsters thought think they can buy themselves out of adherence to contract law.  And you do, too.

"Original holder"!?  That's funny.  The actual NOTE 'mistakenly' got put through an incinerator in Hong Kong, and now all the poor banker-gangsters have are these 10,000 photocopies.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 23:09 | 883265 GreenSideUp
GreenSideUp's picture

The real issue is the bankster's complete disregard for laws regarding property transfers and thus corruption of the chain of title.  The law is that only the note holder has standing to foreclose, so no note = (or should =) no foreclosure.

As to paying, if there is no note, how do you know that your payments are going to the actual holder of the note (assuming there even is one)?  

Incidentally, localities were effectively screwed out of recording fees.   

Now, J6P, who is current on his mortgage, decides to sell his home sometime in the future.  You DO understand that he won't be selling that home with a clouded title, don't you?  And with the sheer number of mortgages in this mess, all the title insurance in the world isn't going to fix it? 

Geez, the DMV does a better job at title transfers. 





Mon, 01/17/2011 - 23:40 | 883316 reading
reading's picture

Marc, the original note holder doesn't have any basis for receiving payment on the note.  I am not into freeloading but I am into banks following the f*cking contract law -- it's their business and when they decided to cut every corner they could find they might have wanted to think about ensuring they actually still had the original, properly recorded and properly transferred contracts where they were supposed to be.

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 01:20 | 883473 msamour
msamour's picture

Good Day Sir, it seems to me that the issue you fail to understand here is quite simple. People pay their mortgage to a certain bank because said certain bank send them a letter stating they purchased their mortgage, meanwhile not presenting any evidence. So, For example a person, let us call him Marc, pays his mortgage every month without fail for the duration. One would expect that after Marc is done paying his mortgage he would recieve clear title; correct? Not so much. Marc got swindled because the bank he had been paying the mortgage to was not entitled to recieve the payment. So Marc paid hundreds of thousands of hard earned money and after so many years Marc ends up with nothing. That person Marc, is you. I certainly hope you lose your entire life because you so far are so idiotic about your failure to understand common sense that it is laughable. Don't worry though Marc, I reckon rope will still be cheap when you realize the bankers really raped you for all these years.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 22:03 | 883129 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

"However, they CANNOT offer any proof that the note was legally transferred from Bank X to BoA."

What about going to the county courthouse and seeing if the assignment to BoA is properly recorded?

If it isn't, ok, there's your proof and there's your case.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 23:24 | 883287 Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

The proof can be located, if any, on record at the County Recorder Office of that home.  Last I looked, almost every state requires registration of the transfer or assignee to be recorded on the margin or by seperate instrument of the mortgage note.  The county office is generally very friendly and more than willing to send all related documents to any transfers, as well as the note.  I made sure to check those records prior to my request for the note.  I just wanted to get the fucks to admit they transferred it in writing, as all of my phone requests said no transfer had been made.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:01 | 882894 Cheyenne
Cheyenne's picture

"They didn't refuse to show you the note, only to send you the original.  What is so wrong with a copy?"

Nothing. Which is why I requested a pdf of a color scan. Bank didn't comply. Too bad.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:15 | 882918 Logans_Run
Logans_Run's picture

Perhaps you do a little research before you post next time.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 19:52 | 882869 Rogerwilco
Rogerwilco's picture

BAC put customers on notice several months ago via a letter attached to mortgage statements. The letter offered, upon payment of a $15 fee, to provide a "validation" document to show the status of the mortgage. Unwritten was the other implication of that generous offer -- if a customer wanted more substantial documentation, well they can either lawyer-up, or piss off.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 19:52 | 882874 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

This has made me seriously question what Julian Assange could have. This is an outright embarrasment.

I wonder if Bank of America Merril Lynch Countrywide knows where their money is.  If I ran a business like these fucking idiots I'd be bankrupt likity split.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:08 | 882905 Pladizow
Pladizow's picture

No you would'nt, you'd be bailed out!

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:11 | 882909 TheProphet
TheProphet's picture

Well, they are bankrupt. Don't confuse liquidity with solvency.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 22:10 | 883148 Fred Hayek
Fred Hayek's picture

Exactly.  Most if not all of the too corrupt to fail banks have been insolvent since 2008. 

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 19:53 | 882875 Boba Fiat
Boba Fiat's picture

Exact letter I got.  But in a couple weeks your "reader" will get a second letter from customer service that says, in part:


"Please note that a credit block was placed while the issues in your letter were addressed...[and] we will not remove the negative credit reporting from your credit file"


I'm sending a personal letter to Moynihan.  Then one to my state Attorney General.  Of course I have already canceled all my BoA accounts.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:17 | 883033 Trimmed Hedge
Trimmed Hedge's picture

What in god's name are you -- or anyone, for that matter -- actually banking with these guys for?!?

Bank with a mega-bank, and get treated like shit.

Did you really expect otherwise?

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 19:58 | 882884 ExploitTheMarket
ExploitTheMarket's picture

Almost the exact same letter they sent me...translated it means: "we have absolutely no idea where your note is, it was probably shredded years ago."

anyone have the links handy as to the proper response (the legalese) or what should be included in my response?

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:07 | 882902 Dr. Porkchop
Dr. Porkchop's picture

Yes, it's:


Show me the note, motherfucker! Or I'm lawyering up.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 22:11 | 883152 Fred Hayek
Fred Hayek's picture

Lawyer up and do what this guy did in Utah:

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:40 | 882970 Misean
Misean's picture

Cheyenne has the right idea:

TYVM for proving to me that you are not the holder of my note, and are thus not the correct party for the mortgage payments. I shall cease paying the mortgage forthwith. If you should like me to continue, please show up in court siting legal authority to receive said payments. As well, I shall also be pursuing the return of the funds you must have held in trust for me for the payments I've made thus far.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:07 | 883014 ExploitTheMarket
ExploitTheMarket's picture

I am not an attorney, but..."To recover on a promissory note, the plaintiff (the Lender in the case of foreclosure) must prove: (1) the existence of the note in question; (2) that the party sued signed the note; (3) that the plaintiff is the owner or holder of the note in due course; and (4) that a certain balance is due and owing on the note."

How about filing a motion to dismiss (or something like that?) the note

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:25 | 883045 Misean
Misean's picture

Nothing to dismiss. The person/entity to whom I promised to pay either sold it or no longer exists. Another entity is claiming that he properly acquired said note and wants me to continue payments to discharge the debt or hand over the property. The proper response to such a claim is "prove it!" That is precisly what all this "paperwork" and title law ad nauseum was created over the last few centuries to do. It should not be a problem.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:00 | 882887 FatFingered
FatFingered's picture

I wonder how one goes about viewing a document with a 'wet ink signature'?  My bank continues to send me responses to questions I did not ask.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:06 | 882900 gwar5
gwar5's picture

I wish Assange would leak on BAC already.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:12 | 882911 pazmaker
pazmaker's picture

JPM sent me a copy, the only problem is the note was never assigned to them .. at least not at the court house register of deeds.  they stamped the top of the copy with "Chase" Our documents can be accessed on line at the local register of deeds website anybody could download it and put their stamp at the top.  I find nothing assigning them the note it was orignated by a broker who then sold it to SIDUS Financial now in the hands of JPM


They also said they are not legally obligated to provide me wet ink copy.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:34 | 882961 Cheyenne
Cheyenne's picture

They're correct. However, file a Rule 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) for failure to state a viable claim when they file a foreclosure suit, and PRESTO!, your bank's position will change rather radically.

I actually sat down with a plaintiff's foreclosure lawyer, told her my plan, and asked how she'd get around the lack of a note. Her best answer is that there's mucho electronic traffic evidencing the EXISTENCE of a note at one time.

That's not good enough for Aeticle 3 standing, I told her.

She had no answer. All I needed to know.

The banks are fucked if enough Americans have the sack...

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 22:14 | 883156 Fred Hayek
Fred Hayek's picture

Like the guy in Utah described here:

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:16 | 882920 SashaBelov
SashaBelov's picture

Do I understand right that there it's posibility that banks don't even have documents proving that they realy hold some mortgage and on the court they would be powerless angainst someone who doesn't pay his obligations?

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:17 | 882923 TheProphet
TheProphet's picture

In 2006, I originated a loan with Texas Capital Bank that was promptly sold to Countrywide.

In December 2010, I refinanced with a different institution and paid off the Countrywide note.

Just last week, I received in the mail the ORIGINAL, inked Promise To Pay with the first page stamped "Paid In Full."

So if they tell you they cannot locate the original paperwork, perhaps something is wrong.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:17 | 882925 citizen2084
citizen2084's picture

I received this exact letter. They enclosed the copy and funny thing is the copy of the document they sent says I promised to pay someone else the money, not BAC.



Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:58 | 882997 Boba Fiat
Boba Fiat's picture

Exactly.  BoA can't prove they bought the note from the someone else.  The letter is an outright admission of that.  Odd, too, that they would be so beligerent, as many of the recipients of their letter also bank with them.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:17 | 882926 ExploitTheMarket
ExploitTheMarket's picture

Mish had another good post on this today:

someone commented " ANY mortgage with a MERS clause on it casts doubt on the fact of your mortgage payment getting credited to the correct investor. Whether you are making your payment or not, if you have a MERS clause you probably are not paying the correct party, or "at best" you are paying into a twisted algorithm to satisfy some tranch of MBS temporarily. This is as a DIRECT result of the banks intentional destruction of the title history. WE WILL NEVER KNOW WHO JUSTLY OWNS THE NOTE. Again as a direct result of the banks, not the borrower. Sorry, but I got tired of paying into a criminal enterprise that has destroyed our Country and land records and they had the audacity to come up with a fraudulent doctored note as the original."


Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:19 | 882929 Logans_Run
Logans_Run's picture

I was told by a very knowledgeable lawyer in Texas last week that the Bench is trying to make this issue go away by ignoring it in the great state of Texas. In fact she said one particularly judge threatened with comtempt of court for insisting that the judge take a close look at the fraudulent documents. Also Senator Hutchinson is on the side of the banks with this one. My message, think carefully before defaulting in Texas because you aren't likely to get much of a hearing, particularly since it is a non-judicial state and the Bank doesn't even have to present documents in order to foreclose.

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 09:37 | 883763 skipjack
skipjack's picture

So the answer in a non-judicial state is to file BK, then reaffirm the note.  Of course reaffirming the note would include them having to actually produce it.  That's how you get in front of a judge.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:27 | 882946 The Talmud Kid
The Talmud Kid's picture

Suppose this person were to walk into BAC and pay the entirety of the amount of the mortgage + whatever points to satisfy the loan.

How would they receive clear title to the property?

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:30 | 882951 Logans_Run
Logans_Run's picture

You giving odds?

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:31 | 882954 Everyman
Everyman's picture

I like your icon.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:37 | 882966 ExploitTheMarket
ExploitTheMarket's picture

Exactly! The chain of title has been broken in so many cases...How do you know you can provide a clean title if you sold your house? (assuming you could)....

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:00 | 883001 Boba Fiat
Boba Fiat's picture

Which is why I asked the Bank for verification.  Instead, they dinged my credit score. 


This guy too:

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 22:16 | 883165 bankonzhongguo
bankonzhongguo's picture

This is more of a thought experiment, but (again) if BAC (or someone) filed a re-conveyance on the property - whether correct or not - hey at least there is something at the recorder's office that says the mortgage is in fact paid.  One piece of paper signed by a robo-signer.

Once filed.  Get a certified copy for your records and sell the house.  Stop paying the mortgage and sell the property to another corporation and rent and cloud title x3 or leave town.  It may take years to clear.

If there is a claim that the mortgage is paid in full - the filed re-conveyance, the bank must take two steps back in order to foreclosure; 1) show ownership of the the original note and prove their standing and 2) prove that it has not been paid.  Pretty hard to show you have not been paid in full on a note you don't possess.  You have to put the bank on the defensive.

Fight fire with fire.  Its time for neighbors to start doing favors for each other.

Go down to your county recorder's office.  Find a timely sample of your bank's standard re-conveyance that seems to be prepared by the usual big title companies.  Walk it over to the recorder's counter, mail it in, or place it near some clerk's workstation.  Title folks walk a stack into the county and they stop the clocks at 9AM to bulk file their works.  Just get it in the stack?

See what happens.  The banks have been very good about not filing stuff properly.  Mix that conduct with their capacity to file things they shouldn't.

Something to think about at night.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:31 | 882952 Everyman
Everyman's picture

And nobody believes that there will be alll out violence and mayhem visited upon banks, branches and officers of said crtiminal cartels?

These pricke hide behind the law when it protects them, then turns around and bitches about complying with the law when it is an inconvienence or costs them a bit of their insane profit.

I cannot wait til these assholez get their come uppance with some double aught buchshot in their faces.  Just one crazy person that has lost everything and then a big bank like BOA pulls this shit and then; BLAM both barrels from a wronged crazy person.

Crazy people still have rights.  So much for bankers at that point.  It had better not happen in Texas, they have some pretty clear property rights, and Judges can be removced from the benches with just a couple of infractions or collusion allegations.

Crazy people don't care if it is a banker or a Judge.

Laught my ass off I will.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:36 | 882965 The Talmud Kid
The Talmud Kid's picture

A couple hundred guys like this ought to do the trick.

or these

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:30 | 883051 Nacho.Libre
Nacho.Libre's picture

Here in my part of Texas, it's turning out to be more difficult than I thought to get some attention on the matter.  I had to go through 3 police officers before I got one that could even comprehend the matter of having a fraudulent signature on my note.  The problem is jurisdiction, and if I don't know who signed it and if it was outside the city, then they can't do anything about it. 

I went to the Texas AG and filed a complaint with the "customer protection" division, but they were no help, all they will do is "monitor" the company. 

I went to the county DA and he told me that I didn't have anything to worry about because in Texas, they couldn't take away the home unless I stopped paying.  And as long as I had proof showing that I made all my payments, no one could touch me.  The forged signature, apparently, was no big deal. 

My next step is to go to the county courthouse.  I'm going to talk to the clerk's office and cite Texas Penal code Sec. 32.49.  REFUSAL TO EXECUTE RELEASE OF FRAUDULENT LIEN OR CLAIM.  With in the code, there is a section that gives power to the county clerk to request help from the DA if they believe there are fraudulent filings Government code Sec. 51.901.  FRAUDULENT DOCUMENT OR INSTRUMENT.

I'm going to show them that the note was passed from Everbank, to Citi, and then to Fannie and that no where was that recorded in their records.  As such, they were out at least two different recording fees, if not more (and they are looking for money right now).  I will then advise them that any mortgage filed in the records that says MERS is probably worth 3 to 5 filing fees minimum.  Maybe that will get someone moving.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 22:43 | 883223 Everyman
Everyman's picture

My next step is to go to the county courthouse.  I'm going to talk to the clerk's office and cite Texas Penal code Sec. 32.49.  REFUSAL TO EXECUTE RELEASE OF FRAUDULENT LIEN OR CLAIM.  With in the code, there is a section that gives power to the county clerk to request help from the DA if they believe there are fraudulent filings Government code Sec. 51.901.  FRAUDULENT DOCUMENT OR INSTRUMENT.

That is exactly wat I was talking about with the Texas Private Property Protection laws.

The County can give the State AG a headache, and Posse Posse Comitatus comes into play. 

Who do you think the Texas State Goobernmint is going to take the side of?  New York Bankers or A Texas Citizen???    TBS, BOA has a HQ in Fort Worth across from the AA HQ.


Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:33 | 882959 putbuyer
putbuyer's picture

Time to get off the grid and be free.

Some 20 something chick living alone in the mountains

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:32 | 883057 Hulk
Hulk's picture

That was interesting, think I'll go find her!

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:41 | 882974 Rasna
Rasna's picture

I got the exact same letter when I sent in the written request a couple of months ago... We bought a new house and the builder financed loan was placed with BAC after the close... About  a month after the close BAC sent us a letter stating that the loan was owned by Fannie/Freddie and that they were tasked to service the loan by F/F... Turns out that F/F own 95% of US loans now - not the banks.  They just collect a small fee from F/F for servicing the loan and passing the payment on.

Tyler let me know how to send you a redacted copy of the letter, but it's just like the one in the post.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:45 | 882980 DeltaFreq
DeltaFreq's picture

Here is what the Bank of America terrorists sent to me.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:57 | 882989 Precious
Precious's picture

Hey BofA.  Here's the legal authority:


















Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:55 | 882995 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

i love my bank:

(note: it isn't ally)

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:58 | 882999 Seasmoke
Seasmoke's picture

think there may be alot of lawyers and judges who also have underwater mortgages that they have stopped paying on, so this may be a 50-50 coin flip , if it goes away or blows up on the banks

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 20:58 | 883000 What_Me_Worry
What_Me_Worry's picture

I wonder if they become obligated to show you once they file court papers?  I would be interested in hearing if this is the same response they give to those in the foreclosure process?

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:02 | 883007 Boba Fiat
Boba Fiat's picture

Where are all the underemployed lawyers on this?  They should swarm on BoA like piranhas.  No one is taking up this fight.  (Not even the purple people beaters at SEIU who started the whole campaign--they've retreated into the woodwork).

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:06 | 883013 Precious
Precious's picture

Haven't you heard?  The world is flat.  Do it yourself.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:11 | 883019 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Bankruptcy isn't so bad if you can earn income and live within your means.  Given that fact, a poor credit score is even less bad.

You're free as soon as you dump that obsolete notion of "ownership."  The government, big business, your family, your neighbors--at some point or another, ANYONE can come steal from you, and if "the law" isn't on your side, you lose.

"The law" isn't on your side.  It hasn't been for quite some time.  Do what you like.

Crackhead spider says building webs is for suckas.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:11 | 883022 Jason Bourne
Jason Bourne's picture

There is NO EXCUSE for not paying your mortgage.  It doesn't matter if the paperwork is in order or not asshole - did you borrow the money?  DID YOU BORROW THE MONEY!  If you did then you have to pay.  Granted if you feel that you are not paying the right party - then PUT THE PAYMENTS IN TRUST WITH YOUR LAWYER - have your lawyer show them the trust account.  But by not paying your mortgage at all you are just another prick parasite that is ruining what is left of our country.

If you don't like what the bankers and the Fed and congress has done - then get off the grid, starve the beast, move - do whatever you have to do - but if you are staying here - you HAVE TO PAY.  Its time that each person actually did the right thing instead of the what suits them.  The "its all about me life", is a CANCER in America.

Oh and before anyone starts:  No I'm not a tea partyer or a republican or a democrat.  Nor am I a radical.  I'm just a person "formerly known as a honest hard working American" - too bad that is a fucking minority now.

"If you repay evil with evil, evil will never leave your house"


Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:22 | 883040 Boba Fiat
Boba Fiat's picture

I'm happy to pay my mortgage.  Just prove to me who I should make the check out to.


You don't get it, do you?  They can't prove that they have a legal claim to my check.  They can't tell me who owns the house.  So I'm just gonna pay the wrong party?  Hells no.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:32 | 883052 The Talmud Kid
The Talmud Kid's picture

I plan on buying 50k of silver bullion on the balance of my credit cards with no intention of ever paying any of it.  This will be in addition to the stash I have collected the last 5 years.

That's MY bailout.

At the end of the day no one in this country really owns ANYTHING other than a capital gains risk and a tax liability.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:32 | 883053 Kina
Kina's picture

The banks have obliterated middle America, been bailed out by that same middle America. Their profits are their own their losses belong to the taxpayer.


So yeh pay their fractional banking invisible dollar loans back because it feels good to pay your rapist for the privilidge.


Why on earth should mortgagees p(l)ay by the rules when rules don't apply to corporate America. Well they can play with the rules and ask for a valid note to show current  ownership.


Slave mentality is well and truly still alive

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:33 | 883058 Misean
Misean's picture

If the entity from whom I borrowed money no longer exists, then, unless the obligation is transferable, nothing is further owed. If the obligation IS transferable, their are proper procedures for the transfer of such obligations. If another entity is claiming that the first is true, and he is the one to whom it was transfered, it is his responsibility to prove this was done legally and contracturally correctly. This is ancient stuff in common law, it should not be a problem.

Please take your uninformed lunatic whinings somewhere else. If you want to pay some unknown third party who claims, without warrant, to own some debt you created with someone else, you are of course free to do so.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:55 | 883110 Hacksaw
Hacksaw's picture

@ Jason Bourne


Read this jagoff and then explain again why someone should pay these crooks.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 22:20 | 883176 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

It's just a contract.  You don't pay, there are consequences, that's all.

No reason to get upset and preachy about it.  This is not a moral issue.  If there were moral considerations, it wouldn't be a business matter. 

What you think is right or wrong has no legal significance.

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 14:29 | 884523 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

The Mortgage Bankers Association strategically defaulted on their own mortgage, of an office building in D.C., because they were able to rent for 1/3 the cost of the monthly mortgage payment down the street in a similar building...

...this is after they had a run a national TV Ad campaign about how strategically defaulting was unethical.



Daily Show: Cenac - Mortgage Bankers Association Strategic Default The Mortgage Bankers Association strategically defaults on its loan after shaming homeowners who do the same.




Mon, 01/17/2011 - 23:38 | 883318 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

What a moron.  Completely clueless.

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 05:07 | 883579 Tsukato
Tsukato's picture

Hi Jason :)

You're a real upstanding, salt of the earth kinda guy. The real backbone of our great country, you are. Bet you " bust yer ass" at work every day, and tell yer kids and/or wife that you "work yer ass off" for them. HAHA! You're a fucking relic and caricature of the proud upstanding American. Absolute moron!!!! The only reason you write such tripe is that you've not taken the time to fully research, and understand what is going on. You, my friend, have been criscoed up, qualudes have been slipped into yer PBR, and there's a big fist coming straight at yer anus. You've been spoonfed a disney-ized version of america son. The america you know...never existed. Wake the fuck up!

Wed, 01/19/2011 - 02:01 | 886502 indio007
indio007's picture

No they didn't borrow money. They swapped paper promises. I seriously doubt the "seller" of the property redeemed his Federal Reserve Notes. Only then would there be a loan of money. There is a difference between legal tender and lawful money. If you want to know how to redeem yours see... title 12 section 411 US Code

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:16 | 883029 Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

That is a dumb fucking arguement. Because that note is thier legal authority to collect. Don't all you have to do is flip it and say you can NOT collect this debt because you will not produce the legal authority the NOTE that you are using to collect. This is simply a statement that you do not have the legal authority to view thier legal authority.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:24 | 883042 Trimmed Hedge
Trimmed Hedge's picture

Uh, whatever happened to pretending that mortgages aren't even available, and instead actually saving up for a house and paying in full, in cash, at the time of purchase?

Or, for those who prefer, try to pay in gold....

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:35 | 883062 Ned Zeppelin
Ned Zeppelin's picture

One aspect of this is definitely the issue of "who has the original note?" If your mortgage was transferred into a private MBS, you should dig a bit into it to find out what happened to the original note. If you received notice from a servicer that your note has been transferred to XYZ Bank and you should direct your payments there, given what we now know, I think is very fair to request proof of the transfer (the assignment of the note, and all intervening assignments) until you have the chain if title to that note and mortgage verified. If you do not, and make payments to XYZ Bank simply because you received a piece of paper directing you do to so, you make those payments at your peril.  If you think a judge will help you if you paid the wrong party, you'd be wrong, it's not automatic, and the legal costs of extricating yourself from the multi-party suit that might result will be formidable. 

That said, I would not stop paying my mortgage until this question was answered.  But I could see how some banks might not choose to answer the question, and there you are - what do you do now. If they show you copies of what seems to be a proper trail, I'd be hesitant to say you've "got them."  If they won't show you, it might indicate a very interesting problem.  Action to quiet title would get their attention, while you continue to pay the mortgage "under a reservation of rights."  This problem now underlies all private MBS residential mortgages

My bank (Sovereign) did not sell its loans- they still own my mortgage and service it. 

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:42 | 883079 Misean
Misean's picture


Mon, 01/17/2011 - 22:28 | 883195 Sofa King
Sofa King's picture

My mortgage was transfer in June from a Bank to somebody.  It is being managed by a rather inept company from Texas, at this point in time.  I have yet to be told who the sombody.  I sent my qualified written request persuant to the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act ((“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. §2605(e) for those that want the legal prescedent)  in early December, following many exhausting attempts to find out who the hell is in possesion of my Note.  I recieved a letter the last week of December saying that I will have an answer before March 1st.  On Friday of last, I recieved an envelope containing a summary of all payments I made since the mortgage was transfered to the yet still unknown holder and a copy of my Note from the mortgage entered into when I purchased my home, which was satisfied when I refinanced over a year ago...which puts forth the question why does this management company have a copy of a note that was already payed off (on a side bar: that note the sent me has three stamps on it (one from a VP from the originating bank and two from different VPs from the bank it was transfered to and no Notary stamps).  I am putting another letter together to state my utter disgust with this entire situation.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 21:39 | 883075 minus dog
minus dog's picture

They'll keep pretending the problem doesn't exist right up to the day when a mob crashes through their front gate and torches the joint.  

Think about it; they really have nothing to lose by doing so.  Laws are for little people.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 22:15 | 883161 profoundlogic
profoundlogic's picture

To Nacho Libre...

Talked to the Texas AG's office recently to inquire about any pending lawsuits of banks for filing fraudulent foreclosure documents; their response....sound of crickets chirping.

I suspect the great state of Texas will do nothing short of embracing the banks with open arms no matter how many laws they violate.  After all, our governor ran on the platform that Texas is "open for business".

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 00:37 | 883421 Nacho.Libre
Nacho.Libre's picture

It really is a sad situation.  What's worse is that the attorneys, who you would think would be salivating at the possibility of some easy money are blowing this off because they've heard that it is just some minor paperwork snafu. 

It just reinforces the notion of how easy it is to manipulate people, even those that are supposedly very well educated and are supposed to know the law.  No wonder civilization is in the shape we are in!

The only possibility, from what I've been running into, is to find a lawyer who would be willing to take the case as a violation of civil suit.  Maybe even to file a quite title or slander title lawsuit.  I'm still going to work on this, I'm not going to go away. 

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 22:25 | 883189 cuban555
cuban555's picture

I hope this goes VIRAL: Here is the response I got from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage on my request to zero out my mortgage based on their lack of proof of note and deed of trust. Keep in mind, this was their response to my letter:

"Dear Sir/Madam, The document that you submitted for payoff or elimination of the above referenced loan does not meet the terms of your note and mortgage loan that obligates you as the borrower to repay the loan in US currency. The item you submitted is not legal tender and will not be accepted now or in the future as payment on the note or mortgage." Signed, a scribble with no printed name or job title.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 23:46 | 883329 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

You sent a bullshit letter, you got a bullshit answer, end of story.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 23:02 | 883247 Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

Oh I know what to get him for christmas.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 22:44 | 883226 Everyman
Everyman's picture

BoA is off of Amon Carter in East Fort Worth, just south of the Airport.

Just sayin'.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 23:10 | 883268 Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

I received a response to my RESPA request (Section 6 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act – law stated in my request for the note) from 5/3 bank.  I will scan this in tomorrow, but here is the response –


The investor who owns your loan is: FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE. 

The transfer of ownership is NOT (emphasis mine) recorded so that Fifth Third Bank can continue to service your loan under a servicing agreement with the investor. (Please keep in mind that the mortgage was transferred according to the banks records for March of 2007 – only one month after signing the mortgage – wholesale mortgage credit line fraud)


This response is indicative of the recent widespread failure of securitization industry participants to adhere to their own agreements.  Furthermore, Ohio Revise Code requires that an assignment must be in writing and recorded (Government Sponsored Enterprise or not).  A mortgage may be assigned or partially released by the holder of the mortgage, by writing the assignment or partial release on the original mortgage or upon the margin of the record of the original mortgage and signing it. Also allowed by separate instrument, see code sections 5301.31 and 5301.32.  A search of documents at the County Recorder Office, as well as a search of the documents 5/3 BANK presented in response to the RESPA request indicates no such required recording of the assignment on the original mortgage or through any separate instruments. (Freddie Mac transfers can be recorded with a Form 1034T, but this instrument is not on record with the recorders office either)

Since there is no document in the record establishing that either the note or the mortgage was assigned to FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE, hence no legal documentation to indicate that the note was assigned, then the lien from them does not exist. If, as the RESPA response indicates, FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE is the investor on this mortgage (paying the originator fully for the security) and 5/3 BANK is not the holder of the note, then there is no basis for the claim of continued receipt of the borrowers’ payments. As such, 5/3 BANK would not be considered a creditor of this debtor and lacks statutory authority to file a proof of claim on this property.

I have now written a formal request for a Satisfaction of Mortgage for 5/3 BANK to remove the lien position on the mortgage.  I gave also asked for them to provide me, as per RESPA authority, an accounting of all payments paid to the investor listed in the response to the October 14, 2010 RESPA request.  If all of my payments have been going to 5/3 and not the investor, then they were fraudulently collecting payments to add to their “reserves”.  According to Ohio Revised Code I am due those payments back.

The bank now has 20 days to respond request received and 60 to settle the matter.  After that I have an attorney that is ready to go after Quiet Title similar to the case here -  The caveat for me is that I am still current in my payments, so the pressure of a foreclosure is not breathing down my neck.  I’ll keep you posted if anyone is interested.

No, I am not an attorney.  I just play one on ZeroHedge. 

I might be wrong, I might be right, but I might as well try.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 23:50 | 883340 cuban555
cuban555's picture

I have a similar situation as yours. I would like to brainstorm with you on this. I have been fighting Wells Fargo and I think I gave them enough rope to hang themselves. Freddie Mac is the suppose to be 'investor'. County records shows last recorded document to be wells fargo in 2003; nothing since then. Their responses have been circling around nothing truly meaningful or with validity.

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 00:43 | 883434 Nacho.Libre
Nacho.Libre's picture

I went through those steps demanding a release of the fraudlent lien.  No response.  Nothing.  So, on to look for a decent attorney here in Texas.

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 04:26 | 883570 lex nulla
lex nulla's picture

Sis in Columbus - 5/3 balloon - came due in June.  The right hand sent a new payment booklet (sans agreements or sigs, go figger) and told to keep makin' 'em, which they have.  No change in amount.  No assignments on record.  Original mortgage w/balloon rider filed, but the separate original Balloon Note evidenced in the court docs is not there.  Some monkey business with the escrow account, too.

Odd case - they're in default on the original agreement to cough up the full balloon - but they were told they were good, and haven't missed any payments on the new agreement, or whatever that is.  Mystifying.

Meanwhile, the left hand is foreclosing.

No mention of freddie in court filings, - but a check there shows they think they own it.  5/3 clearly states they own it in the court docs, no mention of servicer role.

I got them to file a request for production of documents pro per and letters to freddie and 5/3 requesting:

"to see the Original Balloon Note, Mortgage, and Balloon Rider.  In addition, please provide all endorsements and assignments of my mortgage note and where and when the assignment(s) if any – were recorded.  I also ask that you provide me with evidence of your firm being contractually retained to service my loan."

They are like freakin' deer in the headlights, will NOT aggressively pursue RESPA or counsel, filed request for mediation for the 120 day stay (not the 60 day extension I prepared), I put 'em on to Malvasi (only atty I could find that seemed to be pursuing this line) and they did talk to him, but I don't know if they've followed up after I stopped pestering them when they filed the mediation paperwork.  I think mediation is of no positive value to them, and I've explained how they want to avoid signing anything else until the chain of custody is unraveled.

Should I just give up on 'em?  Try one more time?  Trial assignment is way out at 12/5.  Beg you for your attorney's name, perhaps he would take the lead and save them from certain doom?

Well, at least it's not underwater on top of everything else.

Disclosure:  First post, tho' I've lurked for a loooooooong time.  This topic gets my blood boiling, though MY humble place is paid for.  I kinda wish I had a mortgage so I could wade in.  Yes, this does argue for masochistic tendencies.


Mon, 01/17/2011 - 23:32 | 883307 GeneH3
GeneH3's picture

My bank did not assign my note and mortgage either and the same bank that filed the mortgage gave me and filed a Discharge of mortgage when I paid it off. That's how it ought to be. There should be a chain of assignments in the real estate records showing the entity that owns the mortgage so that when you pay it off, the discharge is from the same entity. Otherwise, there is a cloud on your title.

One way of checking is to try to get another title policy and if you can't get it, find out why. If the answer is the title is not clear, call up whoever backs your current title policy and demand that he clear the title.

I expect that due to the "sloppy paperwork" of the banks, the title insurers are starting to find in a number of cases that they cannot do adequate title searches to verify titles of homes whose mortgages ended up securitizing RMBS. And so, I suspect, that it will become difficult for many people who purchased their homes during the bubble years to resell those homes because the buyer can't get title insurance. This, in addition to the problem of titles and securing title insurance for foreclosed homes.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave . . ..

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 23:33 | 883308 rosiescenario
rosiescenario's picture

Our original loan was with CountryWide and we were told they kept the loan in house. Now we learn from BofA that the loan went to MERS and they cannot come up with the far they have sent us a history of our payments and a few demand letters...but no note.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 23:50 | 883338 Nels
Nels's picture

Slightly off-topic, but out of the blue Chase sent me an offer to cut 1% off my mortgage rate, with all other charges (title ins, recording fees, etc.) covered by Chase.   I've only 3 days to accept.  Seems like they have a guilty conscience about something.

Mon, 01/17/2011 - 23:54 | 883348 Everyman
Everyman's picture


Tue, 01/18/2011 - 00:01 | 883359 Hacksaw
Hacksaw's picture

Can you say, they want my sig on a new note?

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 00:24 | 883404 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Sounds like they're trying to cover their @ss by offering you a refi!

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 11:34 | 883996 Nels
Nels's picture

Turns out to be the HARP program.  Fannie/Freddie is paying for this as part of the 'Making Home Affordable' program.

My cynical side suggests that they are giving lower rates to folks like me who have passable rates & low principle, rather than folks on the edge and who really could use a cut in rates, in order to pad their counts of successful aid attempts.

But, it seems to be free money.

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 00:43 | 883432 RichardP
RichardP's picture

We are no longer the United States of America are we - if corporations are free to violate state laws because no state cares to prosecute the breaking of those laws.  Here is the fact - most states can no longer afford to protect their residents.  They don't have the money for it.

Isn't that how the U.S. defeated the Soviet Union.  We kept spending money on an arms race and eventually the Soviets could no longer afford to keep up.  I think we are now seeing the defeat of the U.S. citizens because the states can no longer afford to prosecute the many breaking of state laws by corporations.  I think the founding fathers didn't anticipate that one and provide a remedy in the Constitution.

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 01:42 | 883489 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

The states can afford to protect their residents, it's just that the will hasn't been there.  State government is subject to the same corrupting influence of campaign-finance that national government is subject to.

The smallest town in Alaska can tell BAC to get fucked and rule against it no matter how much money is paid to corporate attorneys to represent the bank's case.  If higher-level courts are prepared to deny appeals or rule in favor of individuals vs. the big banks, the situation can be rectified one municipality at a time.  States don't need expensive lawyers--they own the judges.

Local government is perfectly able to kill the biggest zombies, it'll just take awhile.

Tue, 01/18/2011 - 03:51 | 883560 Lapri
Lapri's picture

Our mortgage is in a REMIC, and we happen to know the name of the trustee and the name of the REMIC. But everytime we ask BAC who the investor is, the answer is always "It's top secret, we cannot give it to you."

They gave the abbreviated name of the "investor" when they sent out the letter announcing the change of the servicer, and it was easy to trace the REMIC from there. But BofA insists it's a top secret. LOL.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!