WordPress Foreclosure Webpage —A wrongful foreclosure suit

A wrongful foreclosure suit filed in superior court attacking the servicing compliance may serve the purpose of delaying a servicer’s recovery of its security. A notice of pending action, injunction and/or motion to consolidate are the companion filings to a suit and can delay a servicer’s ultimate recovery. Delay caused by a wrongful foreclosure action can be anywhere from forty-five days to two years. Continue reading

The Treasury Department pumped $125 billion into the country’s largest financial institutions, and it promised another $125 billion — more, if necessary — to recapitalize regional and community banks.

They are vital steps and the global recapitalization of the banking system is the reason. But the job isn’t done and nothing seems to have trickled down to the homeowners….why?

Wake up America – Modifications do not exist. And the capital advances are to supplement the value for the assets these banks are stealing back for securitization deals gone wrong….very very wrong.

California said no more modification help  . . . maybe they could have been a little more honest? They do not exist.

Portraying foreclosure consultants as Crooks, Thieves and Kop Egg Rolls  are a little bit of an obstruction.

Even the bad ones made phone calls and talked to parties who “were not authorized to discuss the loan.” FAS 140-3 friends.  THAT IS THE VIOLATION NEEDED TO ARGUE RELIEF IN COURT MORE THAN ANY OTHER ARGUMENT.

That’s testimony to an “expert witness” to provide counsel AND I will go out, interview and collect the information.

We need to realize – there are no other solutions to a securities deal gone bad. We played by the rules and lost in better times. Now are faced with this?

Look Darwin was nuts, dinosaurs did not exist, the Berlin Wall never came down and do you believe we put a man on the moon? Mr. Andy Kaufman’s gone wrestling, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com

Defendant is not Responsible for Fraudulent Check Transactions.

Citation. 211 Pa. Super. 42, 234 A.2d 32, 1967 Pa. Super. 724, 4 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (Callaghan) 624
click the citation to view the entire case on Lexis Nexis

Brief Fact Summary. This is an appeal of the trial court’s holding that the defendant is not responsible for fraudulent check transactions. An employee of the plaintiff stole scaling slips and used the slips to obtain checks which he cashed with fraudulent endorsements. The plaintiff is suing the defendant bank to recover the amount procured by the fraud. Synopsis of Rule of Law. “Any person who by his negligence substantially contributes to the making of an unauthorized signature is precluded from asserting the lack of authority against a drawee or other payor who pays the instrument in good faith and in accordance with the reasonable commercial standards of the drawee’s or payor’s business.”

Facts. Emery Albers was an independent log hauler that frequently transported logs to the Thompson Maple Products’ (the “plaintiff”), company mill. After establishing a close relationship with the plaintiff, Albers obtained blank sets of scaling slips and filled them out to show substantial deliveries of logs with the names of local timber owners as suppliers. Albers then delivered the slips to the bookkeeper who prepared checks payable to the timber owners listed on the scaling slips. Albers then volunteered to deliver the checks to the owners and would forge the payee’s signature and either cash the checks or deposit them in his account at the defendant, Citizens National Bank (the “defendant”). In 1963, the forgeries were uncovered and Albers was imprisoned. The plaintiff then instituted this suit against the defendant alleging that the defendant breached its contract of deposit by paying the checks over forged endorsements. The trial court ruled that the plaintiff’s own ne gligence contributed to the unauthorized endorsements and consequentially dismissed part of the plaintiff’s claim.

Tagged

Mortgage Loans and Basis in Assets

Loans originate on bank lines of credit. The banks line will wire the proceeds into settlement and there are dispersed by the settlement agent. The banks outstanding balance is a liability. The loan it holds is an asset. By the end of a given term, the volume of loans assembled over the quarter is transferred away from the banks and removed as a liability. In other words the servicing rights are what are left held by the bank upon the transfer of the assets capitalization or Derecognition of its basis in the assets.
Each loan is measured by the face amount of the note and borrowers promise to pay indicated by the terms and conditions held in the promissory note.
The capitalization is the wire balance authorized in the advance authorized by the bank under a federal wire transfer manifesting from bank to settlement agent. The key elements to this discovery of the banks ownership in the assets are the ABA wire amount, the HUD -1 settlement statement and subsequent recording.
The promissory note holds no evidential value to the controversy were litigation arises. In accounting, this is the general rule for booking assets under a mortgage backed securities scheme. It is for this particular reason that the accounting concept of Derecognition becomes so important in understanding the conflict with the courts understanding of the accounting dilemma.
The loan amount balance wired into the settlement agent upon the initiation and delivery of the wire is the basis in subject loan or the accountant’s recognition of the basis in assets. The basis in loan is both the value of the note and the liability for lines of credit outstanding. It is no different than spending $1,000 to purchase furnishing for a home. The cost of the furniture is $1,000 paid from the proceeds of a credit card.
The net effect of the purchase price is the amount shown on the credit card as an outstanding balance.

…from a recent audit report

Not for publishing -

Dt 04/23/22011 matter /Case no : held ” Orginal claim filed” CA 8/2009 Co. CONTRA COSTA type } circuit …move to FED DST CT US BK before ”>”
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., A National Banking Association.
9062 Old Annapolis Road,Columbia, Maryland 21045.
Indebted is left, to sit in bankruptcy, and whereupon the district court, jurisdiction is over liens and mortgages existing upon the property of bankrupts, II F.1 Transfer of subject matter title are basis in claims or counterclaims by defendants in seperate [seriel) fiing under material claims [See “The Master Servicer] rules governing , the Trust Administrator, the Custodian and the Servicer—The Master Servicer and Trust administrator” (exhibit 1IV.) prospectus supplement. -

In defendants pleading the court shall recall (introduce into production / evidentiary) pursuant to the parties’ agreement; the master servicer will be required, “Duties” ** incidental as fiduciary**, among other things, to monitor the performance of the cashier “(servicer”).
See addendum under exhibits list; // “The Pooling and Servicing Agreement” in this prospectus supplement.

(Citation; § 2. And be it further enacted, where all future payments, (future valuation affecting conditional contract given consumer) securities, conveyances, or transfers of property, or agreements made or given by any bankrupt in contemplation of bankruptcy, and for the purpose of giving any creditor, indorser, surety, or other person, any preference or priority over the general creditor (subject to jurisdiction and claims) and all other payments, securities, conveyances, or transfers of property, or agreements made or given by such debtor , in contemplation of insolvency , to any person or persons whatever, not being a bond creditor or purchaser for a valuable consideration, without notice, Allegations as to the above entitled matter and herein subject matter – therfore shall be deemed utterly void, and a fraud upon this act; . . .. .. . . . . . .III. a. As to the parties responsible for the quality of the investment offering, the registration relies on the asset it originates, and herein we identified the originator as SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. STMI originated all of the pooled borrower loans. See “The Originator” and “Underwriting Standards “as found and available upon request; “found also in this prospectus supplement”. . .. . .Conclusions – For purposes of the proposed business model, meaning Proforma and intent, a Trust Administrator by means and methods incorporated into the private placement memorandum and pooling and servicing agreements, the Trust Administrator was elected “identified” for filing purposes as Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a National Banking Association. withheld, avoids and reamined silent in its duties and fails therein to proffer a clear concise and indubitable translation of the current events and circumstances at such time for which its acts and procedural requirment burdens its obligation in such matters of trust //See “The Master Servicer, the Trust Administrator, the Custodian and the Servicer—The Master Servicer and Trust Administrator” in this prospectus supplement.
Said Trustee listed in records is U.S. Bank National Association, a national banking association. The trustee’s principal office is
U.S. Bank National Association, EP-MN-WS3D, 60 Livingston Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55107. . . . .[V].a. Ref: / submission by Soliman; M. // See “The Pooling and Servicing Agreement—The Trustee” in this prospectus supplement. Most notably “…as for this arrangement amongst parties, its Custodian named for filing disclosure requirements is SunTrust Bank, a Georgia banking corporation. . .. [V].a1 (on file) See “The Master Servicer, the Trust Administrator, the Custodian and the Servicer—The Custodian” in this prospectus supplement. . . .V. a.2 (on file) See “The Pooling and Servicing Agreement—The Credit Risk Manager- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. / See “The Pooling and Servicing Agreement—(addendum) See Credit Risk Manager” in this prospectus supplement. . . . ..end /

SUMMARY PLEADING// Su: “AMEDMENT” ADVR. / “subject to ” The nexus for beliefs leading to claims and therefore alleging the parties “Lenders” selectively Withhold defaulted loans and thus manipulate GAAP sales treatment under IRS reporting requirements fro the business and not “QUALIFIED” [(as to) (?) See a General Delaware Business Trust;] and as to the SEC enforcement under Reg 1122 Ab. see attached exhibits (exhibit 1II) enforcement procedures thereby enforcing foreclosure recovery under conditions precedent to sale. . . .Pleaded: Therefore the Plaintiffs in the subject matter controversy cite under code of enforcement U.S.C. citation; § 2.(FED Dist. Ct BK) herein amongst others, this example of misappropriated asset allocation and cause for material breach of the understanding are

. . .”www.foreclosurewebpage@wordpress.com”

continuing . . . >>> Now, as to the indebted, who now is left sitting in bankruptcy, and whereupon the district court, jurisdiction is over liens and mortgages existing upon the property of bankrupts, BUT as to inquire into their validity and extent, and grant the same relief which the state courts might …end //>>>

M.Soliman, on June 27, 2011 at 3:37 pm said:
Leave a Reply
Enter your comment here…

M.Soliman, on June 27, 2011 at 4:19 pm said:

Who ever emailed me….(rocketmail) its not going through .
Anyway …this is as far as I can go . .{CAP MARKETS REP.} as for recent client case files for related su. matter /expert evaluation – ref. CAP MKT study (not audit) .

Good Luck
———————————————-
not for publishing -

Dt 04/23/22011 matter /Case no : held ” Orginal claim filed” CA 8/2009 Co. CONTRA COSTA type } circuit …move to FED DST CT US BK before ”>”

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., A National Banking Association.
9062 Old Annapolis Road,Columbia, Maryland 21045.
Indebted is left, to sit in bankruptcy, and whereupon the district court, jurisdiction is over liens and mortgages existing upon the property of bankrupts,

II F.1 Transfer of subject matter title are basis in claims or counterclaims by defendants in seperate [seriel) fiing under material claims [See “The Master Servicer] rules governing , the Trust Administrator, the Custodian and the Servicer—The Master Servicer and Trust administrator” (exhibit 1IV.) prospectus supplement. -In defendants pleading the court shall recall (introduce into production / evidentiary) pursuant to the parties’ agreement; the master servicer will be required, “Duties” ** incidental as fiduciary**, among other things, to monitor the performance of the cashier “(servicer”).
See addendum under exhibits list; // “The Pooling and Servicing Agreement” in this prospectus supplement. (Citation; § 2. And be it further enacted, where all future payments, (future valuation affecting conditional contract given consumer) securities, conveyances, or transfers of property, or agreements made or given by any bankrupt in contemplation of bankruptcy, and for the purpose of giving any creditor, indorser, surety, or other person, any preference or priority over the general creditor (subject to jurisdiction and claims) and all other payments, securities, conveyances, or transfers of property, or agreements made or given by such debtor , in contemplation of insolvency , to any person or persons whatever, not being a bond creditor or purchaser for a valuable consideration, without notice, Allegations as to the above entitled matter and herein subject matter – therfore shall be deemed utterly void, and a fraud upon this act; . . .. .. . . . . . .III. a. As to the parties responsible for the quality of the investment offering, the registration relies on the asset it originates, and herein we identified the originator as SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. STMI originated all of the pooled borrower loans. See “The Originator” and “Underwriting Standards “as found and available upon request; “found also in this prospectus supplement”. . .. . .Conclusions – For purposes of the proposed business model, meaning Proforma and intent, a Trust Administrator by means and methods incorporated into the private placement memorandum and pooling and servicing agreements, the Trust Administrator was elected “identified” for filing purposes as Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a National Banking Association. withheld, avoids and reamined silent in its duties and fails therein to proffer a clear concise and indubitable translation of the current events and circumstances at such time for which its acts and procedural requirment burdens its obligation in such matters of trust //See “The Master Servicer, the Trust Administrator, the Custodian and the Servicer—The Master Servicer and Trust Administrator” in this prospectus supplement.
Said Trustee listed in records is U.S. Bank National Association, a national banking association. The trustee’s principal office is
U.S. Bank National Association, EP-MN-WS3D, 60 Livingston Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55107. . . . .[V].a. Ref: / submission by Soliman; M. // See “The Pooling and Servicing Agreement—The Trustee” in this prospectus supplement. Most notably “…as for this arrangement amongst parties, its Custodian named for filing disclosure requirements is SunTrust Bank, a Georgia banking corporation. . .. [V].a1 (on file) See “The Master Servicer, the Trust Administrator, the Custodian and the Servicer—The Custodian” in this prospectus supplement. . . .V. a.2 (on file) See “The Pooling and Servicing Agreement—The Credit Risk Manager- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. / See “The Pooling and Servicing Agreement—(addendum) See Credit Risk Manager” in this prospectus supplement. . . . ..end /

SUMMARY PLEADING// Su: “AMEDMENT” ADVR. / “subject to ” The nexus for beliefs leading to claims and therefore alleging the parties “Lenders” selectively Withhold defaulted loans and thus manipulate GAAP sales treatment under IRS reporting requirements fro the business and not “QUALIFIED” [(as to) (?) See a General Delaware Business Trust;] and as to the SEC enforcement under Reg 1122 Ab. see attached exhibits (exhibit 1II) enforcement procedures thereby enforcing foreclosure recovery under conditions precedent to sale. . . .Pleaded: Therefore the Plaintiffs in the subject matter controversy cite under code of enforcement U.S.C. citation; § 2.(FED Dist. Ct BK) herein amongst others, this example of misappropriated asset allocation and cause for material breach of the understanding are

. . .”www.foreclosurewebpage@wordpress.com”

continuing . . . >>> Now, as to the indebted, who now is left sitting in bankruptcy, and whereupon the district court, jurisdiction is over liens and mortgages existing upon the property of bankrupts, BUT as to inquire into their validity and extent, and grant the same relief which the state courts might …end //>>>

M.Soliman, on June 27, 2011 at 3:37 pm said:
Robo or Hobo …Bobo Cigs….oh Robo Sigs…yeah , right ! Got it.

Shelley, on June 27, 2011 at 2:16 pm said:
I “C” for crook?

carie, on June 27, 2011 at 10:22 am said:
sorry about the double post…

tnharry, on June 27, 2011 at 10:03 am said:
it’s another slow news day carie

carie, on June 27, 2011 at 9:52 am said:
Am I missing something? Are we talking about the squiggle above the word Christina Huang?

carie, on June 27, 2011 at 9:51 am said:
Am I missing something? Are we talking about the squiggle above the word Christina Huang? Seems like kind of a stretch to say that is the word he or she intended to write…
tnharry, on June 27, 2011 at 9:32 am said:
below post title – click on SEE LINDA GREEN “SIGNATURE” HERE: Match found in Hillsborough County Linda Green C–t

then click the 2nd “Match found in Hillsborough County Linda Green C–t”

or use http://livinglies.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/match-found-in-hillsborough-county-linda-green-c-t1.pdf

Nora, on June 27, 2011 at 7:38 am said:
I also clicked on the links and all I got were adds on how to make money working from home. Is this how some of these ROBO SIGNERS got their jobs, stay home and forge sign documents, because that would be a good job for (them).
I am only jesting, but it could have been true, people are desperate for jobs and money they are willing to stoop as low as becoming FORGERIES.

April, on June 27, 2011 at 7:21 am said:
I clicked on every link and none of them led to a copy of the actual document. How can you find it?

ry Robosigner Gets Punchy and Vulgar on Signing “Linda Green” | Foreclosure News Online, on June 27, 2011 at 6:16 am said:
[...] Source: Livinglies’s Weblog [...]

MERS IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF A WAREHOUSE BANK.

Borrower must understand that MERS holds alleged legal title to the interest granted by Borrower in the Security Instrument. However, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS (as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) has the right: to exercise any or all of those interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property; and to take any action required of the Lender including, but not limited to, releasing and canceling this Security Instrument Deed of Trust (attached as Ex. A to Def.’s Req. for Judicial Notice). Plaintiffs did execute a promissory note and deed of trust in favor of [Lender] and have yet to discover the link for which MERS is either a party or responsible for anything of value.

Having yet to hear the matter as to MERS and its name appearing on the Deed and not the note, we examine Knighton v. Merscorp, Inc. Here the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals was presented with theopportunity to decide whether a claim under Section 8(b) could be brought when only one culpableparty received an unearned fee.    However, the court sidestepped the issue.    The case was broughtbefore the court on an appeal from the district court’s dismissal of a multi‐district litigation case forfailing to state a claim on which relief could be granted.The plaintiffs brought claims against Merscorp, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc. (collectively, MERS), entities that served as the mortgagee of record in the public land records and had charged a one‐time and nominalfee for each registered mortgage.  

The bulk of the plaintiffs’ Section 8(b) claim was that MERS violated RESPA because the services performed by MERS did not benefit the borrower. MERS advanced several arguments in favor of dismissal, one being that for an actionable claim under Section 8(b), a plaintiff must allege that an unearned fee be split between two parties.

Note , while acknowledging the decision by the Second Circuit in Cohen I, the Knighton court refused to decide whether a split in the fee is required, instead holding that there was no allegation that the fee was not earned.The court found that there was no requirement that the service performed have a benefit that inured to the borrower, and that in exchange for the fee, “MERS performed the service of being the permanent record mortgagee in the public land records, regardless of how many times the beneficial and servicing rights to the mortgage loans were bought and sold.”  Therefore, the court affirmed the dismissal because there was no allegation of an unearned fee.

We disagree! A nominee is used to shelter identity of investors and guard against undue exposure to risk and for transferring purposes by its high profile and high net worth investors. Its a Nominee named in place of the principal name in the original note subject to having to identify the real party in interest. MERS serves all the above and fails in its earliest disclosure under RESPA section 8. Where the nominee is paid 432 for its registration services it is boons that MERS is a successors and assigns to the original note. One CANNOT act the benficiary one and beneficial interest can exist at that time and whereupon the agreement for MERS as nominee for the beneficiary on the note does not figure into logical or ethic mind set for the participating parties thought the life of the loans.

Not even one disclosure revealing MERS is found in the files we review , subject to RESPA Sec 8 compliance requirements for settlements of loans. CitiFinancial Group is a leading participant in the subprime crash who avoided adding MERS till recently for this reason. MERS added to the Deed with the Beneficial interest shown alongside of upon the mortgage or deed of trust is no less a “CBA” under HUD enforcement of definition’s for a Controlled Business Affiliation, which it is a violation or Rex X under RESPA . This is the opine with no reference to overcharging. Until the decision by the Third Circuit United States Court of Appeals in Alston v. Countrywide FinancialCorp.,district courts had occasion to address the analysis of the Sixth Circuit in Carter. In Alston, the Third Circuit agreed with Carter, holding that “it is clear to us that the plain, unambiguous language of section 8(d)(2) indicates that damages are based on the settlement service amount with no requirement that there has been an overcharge.”   

In reaching this conclusion, Alston was certainlyreferring to the “any charge paid” language contained within Section 8(d)(2) that was referred to inCarter.   Summing up its opinion, the Alston court concluded that, regardless of whether there was anovercharge, a consumer is entitled to damages for a violation of Section 8 for the individual settlementservice that was involved in the violation.  Therefore, in other words, the court staed:[A] single real estate closing may involve several different services, but the charge for each distinct service will not necessarily violate section 8 . . . . [A] homebuyer is entitled to three times any charge paid, but only for the service connected to the kickback or fee‐split.It appears that until another circuit court addresses the issue, the decisions in Carter and Alston will indicate another step by the courts to broaden the scope of Section 8. Holding that a plaintiff does not have to have a cognizable economic injury in order to bring suit, the decisions in Carter and Alston drastically increase the number of potential plaintiffs with MERS over Section 8 lawsuits and will the litigation over settlement service fees.20See Carter v. Welles‐Bowen Realty, Inc., 493 F. Supp. 2d 921, 927 (N.D. Ohio 2007) (Carter I); Contawe v. Cresent Heightsof America, Inc., No. Civ.A. 04‐2304, 2004 WL 2244538, at *3‐4 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 2004); Mullinax v. Radian Guaranty, Inc., 311F. Supp. 2d 474, 486 (M.D.N.C. 2004); Moore v. Radian Group, Inc., 233 F. Supp. 2d 819, 825‐26 (E.D. Tex. 2002; Morales v.Attorneys’ Title Ins. Fund, 983 F. Supp. 1418, 1427 (S.D. Fla. 1997); Durr v. Intercounty Title Co. of Ill., 826 F. Supp. 259, 260‐62 (N.D. Ill. 1993)

expert.witness@live.com

Arises when IRS assesses that taxes are owed

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
1. Federal priority provision relates to all claims by federal government. Debtor must be insolvent, and when debtor must manifest it in three ways [see class notes]. When those two conditions apply and any of the debtor’s property is sold, the feds get paid first except for choate creditors–complete creditors. Choate=has done everything they can do to reach the highest status as a secured creditor. Name, amount subject to lien must both be definite,which means JLC, SP with future advance/after acquired can’t be choate.
2. Federal tax lien act. Applies to debts owed feds for unpaid taxes. Arises when IRS assesses that taxes are owed, a letter is sent out demanding payment, debtor fails to pay, and a tax lien is filed. When tax lien arises, it dates back to assessment not filing. General rule is only creditors who have choate lien at time tax lien arose have priority. Exceptions: special parties when tax lien FILED (mechanic’s lien holders, JLC’s, perfected SP’s, and purchasers of the collateral). Protected parties take free of tax lien, period (bona fide purchaser of motor vehicle who does not know of tax lien, buyer in the ordinary course of business, bona fide purchaser of personal property of taxpayer of less than $250, attorney’s liens).

INVOLVEMENT OF THIRD PARTIES 2-403(1)

ARTICLE 2 PROVISIONS
WHAT IF THE CREDITOR IS A SELLER, AND THE DEBTOR A BUYER?
The seller is in no better position subject to a few exceptions:
1. Right to withhold goods, 2-703, 2-511 (1)
2. Right to resell the goods, 2-703(d)
3. If seller has reasonable grounds to feel insecure, he can get assurance under 2-609, and if there is no assurance, he can treat the K as repudiated.
4. Refuse to deliver if buyer is insolvent except for cash, 2-702(1)

GOODS IN TRANSIT
1. If seller ships something to buyer, and while goods are en route, seller discovers that buyer is insolvent, seller may stop delivery, 2-705(1) If it is a large delivery, the seller may stop for two additional reasons: if buyer repudiates, fails to make a payment, or if for any other reason the seller has the right to withhold the goods.

2. REPLEVIN–An action to get back property that belongs to you that someone else does not want to give back. If goods are delivered to the buyer, and buyer was defrauding the seller, the UCC “assumes” that the K is rescindable. While not addressed, principles of fraud and equity still apply, 1-103(b). It is a shorter judicial proceeding than the judicial lien process, because there is only one issue to decide–who owns the property. You get a trial within 15 days. Other simplified/expedited proceedings include EVICTION and REPOSSESSION. No discovery is allowed–only complaint, answer, and decision.

IF THE CODE DOES NOT ADDRESS AN ISSUE, YOU CAN USE COMMON LAW PRINCIPLES.

FRAUD–intentional misrepresentation of a past or existing fact. A promise is not a fact because it is a statement about what you will do in the future.

INSOLVENT BUYER RECEIVING GOODS ON CREDIT UCC 2-702(2)
1. Seller may recover the goods within 10 days after buyer’s receipt of the goods and nonpayment.
2. Under the common law action of replevin if there is fraud. If there is no fraud, you can’t get them back under the common law, but you can under the UCC.
3. You can get them back if you demand within 10 days. If buyer misrepresented his solvency within 3 months before receiving the goods, there is no 10 day rule. Reliance is necessary to dispense with the 10 day rule. But for the buyer’s misrepresentation, seller would have not sold the goods.
4. If several of the checks were good, but one bounced, the previous checks were a representation of solvency. However, a couple of bounced checks that is not a pattern is not insolvency.
5. If the misrepresentation was made by someone other than the buyer, such as a credit agency–the intent is to keep the buyer from misrepresenting his insolvency; unless the buyer misrepresents insolvency, the buyer’s fraud is irrelevant; that is the only time the 10 day rule is dispensed with. The only way the seller can reclaim the goods is if the buyer is insolvent. Seller cannot reclaim goods based on buyer misrepresenting anything else.

BILL OF LADING–transfers title from the seller to the buyer, allows buyer to pick up the goods.

GOODS SENT COD
The buyer cannot retain the goods unless he pays for them, 2-507(2); Basically a replevin action.

RECLAMATION MUST BE DONE WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME BECAUSE
Under 2-702 and 2-507, seller must reclaim goods within a reasonable time; if seller does not promptly reclaim, he waives his right. Seller is also motivated to be timely because he runs the risk of the buyer selling the goods off to someone else.

INVOLVEMENT OF THIRD PARTIES 2-403(1)
Voidable title–person who has this is a person who has received goods but has not paid or finished paying for them yet; seller retains power to void the sale. A person with voidable title can transfer good title to a good faith purchaser. A person with void title passes no title. A thief has no title/void title. General rule is all you can convey is what you have–you cannot convey more than what you have; 2-403 is an exception.

Avoid the Haircut Lenders Charge

Scheme 101
The Haircut Devisees
By M.Soliman

Predatory lending practices are not necessarily exclusive to a high rate charged to the borrower. It can be discovered as lower rate and higher cost or vice versa. The cost of the loan must be tied to a par rate calculated off the corresponding treasury plus margin over the current treasury at time of funding.
In Alt “A” and prime it’s simply whatever the market will bear. A predatory practice can include a competitive rate at abusive price levels measured by points and fees. One trick of trade is to “pack” the borrowers’ funding and disbursements schedule to reduce the net effect of the amount needed t wire in and settle. Lenders have a curtailment or haircut that is required in every funding. It is the difference or shortfall off what their warehouse commercial bank lines will provide at closing. Therefore a lender will post from 200 to 300 basis points per loan closing so for every $100,000 the lender originates and settles it must post $2,000. For a loan in excess of $1.0 million that can total $20,000 in out of pocket funds assuming the loan funds at par. (The note rate)
The special trick of the trade is to charge the borrower the two points arbitrarily and to avoid the haircut. Therefore by charging two points on every borrower loan, the advance is 100.00- 2.00% or funds request at 98% of the note face value. Here the lender avoids its hair cut and when it sells the loan- it makes an extra $2,000 to $20,000 to boot. But it’s the borrower is left paying the points

Avoid the “haircut”.

Tagged

Countrywide Views

The allegations against Countrywide are noteworthy in a number of respects. In particular are the beliefs of the SEC brought against this failed subprime mortgage market leader. Their Executive elite are alleged to have gained a corporate philosophy that failed to provide greater scrutiny of predatory lending practices. In general the law will look to some measure of causal effect that can support or validate the allegation of unconscionable practices

In the Countrywide matter, the gravamen is for understanding why a market leading industry giant fell victim to unconscionable lending practices . . .was it simply “greed” ?

M. Soliman
Expert.Witness@live.com

Countrywide Home Loans Inc

The allegations against Countrywide are noteworthy in a number of respects. In particular are the beliefs brought against this failed subprime mortgage market leader who is alleged to have gained a corporate philosophy that failed to provide greater scrutiny of predatory and unconscionable practices in lending practices. In general the law will look to some measure of causal effect that can support or validate the allegation of the Plaintiff. A gravamen for understanding why a market leader and industry giant will fall victim to unconscionable lending practices is simply “greed”.

M. Soliman
Expert.Witness@live.com

Tagged

Letter to Foreclosure Lawyers

June 16, 2011

Dear Counsel

How are you? By now, I had hoped to copyright what I know [LOL] It is no less frustrating, when knowing everything implicit for argument and necessary in foreclosure defense can’t seem to make it into pleadings. What should be included as compelling subject matter with the current legal community is left on shelf. These things I make reference of are assets accounting and transfer policies, unpublished procedures and even secrets concerning insider shortcomings.

Seriously, the things that I would have wanted argued in every case to date is long overdue. The opposition or sectors SOP is flawed in recovery and vulnerable. Therein is where they violate the federal and state law. Origination is the lowest hanging fruit in arguments of a breach and subject to claims for which lenders merely circumvent constructs of the law. It’s upon having to execute in reverse order upon foreclosing on ones title where I see the “parties” violations of law taking place. Knowledge is gained over time, in ones career and affords them the role of insider. As compelling as the inside track may be I have found it’s never a lock to assume it will be openly embraced by friendlier judicious allies. And here I sit watching others guess and promote one off decision after another that WILL come back and be later decided against. It’s because the courts decisions I see are erred and made in misunderstanding of what is not seen and not that which is portrayed.
A deed for example is not removed or separated from the note. Bifurcation is not what is portrayed in pleadings. Diversity and jurisdiction are problems. Declaratory relief and other injunctive remedies are constantly confused with claims fallen unto a private right of action. Its guess work that I see going on from my perspective. Brilliant people are humbled here while the technical insider crowd on WS remains tight lipped.
What’s really hard is to watch title holders needlessly lose or fall victim to one juridical elixir after another. It’s seeing folks lose their homes with substance for arguments being left on the table.
There is only one quickest path between to pints of reference.

I was part of one of the first securitizations offered through Continental Grain. We spent three years trying to make the platform work for us. I was surrounded by brilliant people alongside of me while working under top tax attorneys who were the TRS managing a REIT CAIT I & II.

I am outspoken about title defenses by those owning six homes that generate cash flow going on to years… and while not making a payment. It’s no more or less moot for what does not compute on one claim to title cannot on 100 statutory business trust claims to fee simple title.

If my vernacular is overbearing or thinking seems to leap from A to Z I believe it’s in tune with following the balance sheet versus the law. But I will be straightforward in telling you we are woefully wrong to discount the structure of the subject matter versus the weaker opposition your meeting in court. Your opposition is the economic and financial brains backed by institutional Ivy League academia and tax attorneys. Over my career, nearly everything we did was hyper focused on GAAP. That includes trading bulk pools of assets, managing delivery, warehousing, IT reconciliations and subservicing. You live by GAAP and adherence to IRS code. (While FASB codified pronouncements were a joke for compliance…ask the IASB)

Your strategy should consider the street that still looks to one and only one thing for maintaining compliance. That is SEC “Accredited” Regs. Tax Code and GAAP. Everything we did on yonder was to preserve the tax shelter of the trust and guard peripheral features like operating a TRS, compounding retained earnings, anything related to transferring an NOL, managing phantom income liabilities and creating the necessary WAC/WAM and CPR balanced against market conditions (what the consumer would accept). When the public cries out they do not understand what is said here – then you know the trust mechanism is working. It was set up to reap various economic features as mentioned herein and above. Yet the one feature that reins over all others are the most endeared and protected. . . That is the ability to overcome the overcome the law.

M.Soliman

ISSUES AND UNDERSTANDING OF VULNERABILITY.
. . . What Counsel should know and does not seem to get.

Haircut, RESPA & HUD I
Curtailments & GAAP
Nominee and Code Violations
Structured fiancé and robust proposition
Satisfaction and a window
Credit Bid and ledger
Liens as security Vs. Security liens
Accrual accounting for Basis in assets
The GSE and Private Label Conversion
Bailment and Nominee
Government Long term Goal
US Transition from Deed to UCC
Qualifying the Core asset

M.Soliman
Expert.Witness@live.com

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.