This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
An Example Of Bank Of America Refusing To Provide An Original Mortgage Note
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.
»
- 50742 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
you have it all wrong. The reason that they do not record the investors is so that 5/3 still "owns" the claim to your payments. Think about this: 98% of all mortgages are now to Fannie and Freddie. When they go under, the "investor" is wiped out, and banks such as 5/3 still get your payments.
That is the next bailout for the bankers, maybe a couple years down the road. We will give money to Fannie and Freddie to bail them out, but the banks will have possession of the property and the right to foreclose. The chain stops at the last recorded claimant...
Think twice before you stop payment, your two bit act is nothing compared to the main show, it will roll over you and you will wonder what happened and what train hit you...
By jove, I think you've got it.
And one is certainly advantaged by not being in default when pursuing this strategy, but ultimately will it make any difference?
I have drafted a letter and will be sending it out this weekend. As a Masschusetts resident, and in light of the recent SJC decision, I was able to persuade the spouse to go along.
We'll see what the response looks like and I'll submit it to Zero Hedge. The end result I'll be trying for is a Quiet Title, and remove any clouds that may be there. Not to mention, I want to make sure we've been paying the right freaking people. We started with "Countrywide", flag #1, changed hands many times, flag #2, ended up with TB&W, flag #3.
We'll see how this plays out and I'll keep people posted on it's progress.
revenue streams of the world, unite!
unkle sam says: "nationalize private property!"
don't worry, big banker loves you!
Also, note that you should have good title to your home - that is the deed is in your name. This has nothing to do with the issue to "ownership of", or if you wish, "title" to the note that evidences your debt and the mortgage that secures that debt. The question for you as a homeowner is whether you are writing your mortgage checks to the proper party. In the Ibanez case in Massachusetts, the notes and mortgages never left the second tier bank, even though the Ibanez mortgage was supposedly assigned to a mortgage backed security trust (in which the principal and interest cash flows were "diced up" to create multiple classes of bonds, each with different payment characteristics, most notably, senior rights to principal payments, called "tranches." Fascinating little creatures, actually, and quite safe when not in the hands of bankers mad with greed). The servicer (the bank) representing the Trust that supposedly held the mortgages was unable to prove that it had a valid assignment of the note and mortgage. Hence, it was out of luck in attempting to foreclose.
The fun part then is to ask: well, if that is the problem, why on earth didn't they simply take care of the paperwork then, if it had not been done back when the MBS was created? The answer is, under the REMIC rules, the laws of many states, and the terms of the pooling and servicing agreements themselves, it was too late. If they fixed now, what they didn't do then, they admit all sorts of bad things, giving investors rights to sue, etc. So their worry is not you, it's the big investors, pension funds etc, who bought all this trash. By now, they have talked to each of these investors, and have tried to convince them that it is best to lay low, and that they have the situation under control, and have emphasized to the investors that if any of them start suing, it very well might trigger a tsunami, in which all parties lose, that is, except for the hapless homeowner who will still be wondering who they are supposed to pay. Can't wait for the first suit to come up where the originating bank, and the MBS trust, are each advising the homeowner to pay them.
If you got owner's title policy at the settlement on your house, you've got title or at least it is someone else's problem if you do not.
So their worry is not you, it's the big investors, pension funds etc, who bought all this trash.
Bingo.
I foresee Congress passing a "technical amendment" to the IRC, specifically the REMICs, permitting "constructive assignment," and further, some provision making this national in effect in terms of foreclosures. It will contain some pain for the banks but nothing serious. But the beauty of it will be most people will simply not understand it, and so will not get all riled up about it as it passes. I am sure that is the plan. If TARP passed, this will be child's play.
The question will remain: why didn't they do it right in the first place? And on a widespread and systematic basis. Mass hallucination?
Congress may or may not pass an amendment, including one attempting to validate anything but died in the wool recordations in physical form at register (or registrar) of deeds' offices, and the POTUS may or may not sign/veto it, but that doesn't change the fact that title issues in land are IN REM and wholly a state jurisdiction issue (when was the last time real estate was commerce regulated 'interstate' unless it straddles a border?), and the courts, under the authority of the 10th Amendment, may choose to completely invalidate that congressional and exectutive branch 'amendment.'
You can drive a truck through the Commerce Clause, and this would be upheld in a heartbeat.
That would only cover whether securities laws were upheld, procedural rules followed, etc. [at best]. The issue of recording assignments and priority are all going to be state court matters... which is where the real meat and potatoes are. In other words, even if they somehow square away liability on the securities front, then the securities are likely significantly impaired because they're not really secured by anything... now, maybe they ultimately will be, depending on the number of creditors, value of debt, and value of collateral... but, at the time of issuance, they were pooled claims on unsecured notes...
Of course, this only affects foreclosures already occurred... prospectively, there are numerous hurdles needed to go through by the banks to ensure they can foreclose, but it can be done. (but, like you said, it would likely involve admitting to violating securities laws, etc.). My only question is who in the fuck would agree to keep the toxic waste when they have an option to undo the transaction? fed.gov? Is that remotely in keeping in any fiduciary capacity?
You have noticed all the attorneys general getting all up in arms over this don't you? Well, don't you?
Very unfortunately, I think this will all be papered over at the fed level and the states will be given some hush money so they'll go away.
The states and the attorney generals cannot take away the rights of an individual without first showing standing to take the right and second offering just compensation... in short, the issue lies with individuals... if they want to settle, then make me an offer... otherwise, I get more pissed daily and I have a really, really cheap lawyer.
No, more like easy money, counting on nobody noticing and/or being bailed out if someone does notice. IOW, massive fraud. So what else is new?
Why didn't they do it right?
The simplest explanation would be that only a tiny number of people understood the issues, and they just concealed the mechanics a bit so that they could sell the same product to more than one customer.
Ie: fraud.
If I can make a million dollars selling the Brooklyn Bridge to one person, I can a lot more by selling it to twenty people. That's just common sense.
Perhaps it's unfair to think the worst of these folks.
Ding! That's my thought, but wouldn't that show up in the cash flows for these MBSs. If the loan is sold twice, there are only cash flows for one.
And no - not only is it not unfair to think the worst of these folks, you'd be crazy to think otherwise.
It shows up in MBS cashflow only after the ponzi starts to collapse, and then you tell the institutional investors that, well, you know, there's like risk and stuff, no guarantee of return, we're as surprised as anyone that our forecasting may have been a bit off, the rating agencies fooled us, unexpectedly uncertain economy...
Oh, yes.
Tick tock.
Why didn't they do it right?
Because they didn't have to, as it's now becoming apparent. Unless it isn't.
"We'll see", said the Zen Master.