Hi, Its true, sorry to say. But after 25 years of primary and secondary lending . . .I checked out. I actually gave up on the industry in 2004. Then I was black listed a deal killer, out of touch and lost his touch they would say (who are they anyway….)
Yes, I use to Foreclose on people like you ! Our staff was told “Get em out Now!” We had our own dirt bag Realtors who sold out and di the cash for keys. Losers of the grandest sort, are they not?
What ever the disclosure issue, there is the added burden for resolving the matter of now and concerning the inability of these lenders to procure a conveyance back to the pass through certificate investors and trust – it is unlawful.
I believe the securities structure under the registration, issuance and private placement are not going to withstand the scrutiny of the federal court. I don’t know if this situation is the rampant fraud against Americans as it has been portrayed. It is fact that the securitized pass through certificate investors and trusts are filing foreclosures when they never own/hold the mortgage loan at the commencement of the foreclosure.
MERS is also logical defendant to be name for claims of it’s less than arms relationship and conveyances upon request back to the trust. But nothing is recorded and why is the beneficiary nominee releasing the collateral for a trustee to foreclose or is it settle? MERS allows for recovery on its own behalf of behalf or on behalf of the trust? That means to me that either way the subject loans are clearly in default under the trust agreement.
The unlawful conveyance will further establish a defect in the title at the time of transfer of the ownership of the mortgage loans to the trusts. This portrays the loans are being held by the originating lenders after the alleged “sale” to the trust despite what it says per the pooling and servicing agreements. This is despite what the securities laws require. Finally, it is in conflict with what the master servicer and Prospectus reads. It suggests that many securitized pass through certificate trusts don’t really, legally own these bad loans.
The Trust never own/held the mortgage loan at the commencement of the foreclosure. That means that the loans are clearly in default at the time of any eventual transfer of the ownership of the mortgage loans to the trusts. This means that the loans are being held by the originating lenders after the alleged “sale” to the trust despite what it says per the pooling and servicing agreements and despite what the securities laws require. This also means that many securitized trusts don’t really, legally own these bad loans.
Many of the trusts try to argue equitable assignment that predates the filing of the foreclosure, but a securitized trust cannot take an equitable assignment of a mortgage loan. It also means that the securitized trusts own nothing. The disclosure made in the registration clearly detail the insurance and overcollateralization which is required for the rating and can satisfy a portion of the loss if not all in some cases.
Lenders attempting to recover under the registration in an investment pass through certificate trust structure must be exposed where it fails on multiple counts. The subsequent events including “Loss Mitigation” “Work out offers” and “Negotiated Settlements” are in my opinion further fraudulent acts. Thereto, you must be aware of the deceptive roles of the attorneys acting as trustees and legal teams who will some time have to face the scrutiny of Sarbanes Oxley for their roles in their wrongful portrayal of the status quo and lenders rights to recover (predated mortgage and understanding) for the trust under the power of sale?
The conveyances are unlawful and do not fulfill State code and procedures aside from the SEC and Trust issues. Each conveyance is a subsequent unlawful act and not in accordance with the various Federal statues enforced by The Department of Housing And Urban Development.
I appeal to you – Fight back against these guys. . .just do it!
(We can intervene and provide help)