Category Archives: foreclosures

…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).

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

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

Deed of Sale Transferring Deed, and Disclaimer

Under the FDCPA [In Jerman v. Carlisle], the Court ruled that if a debt collector makes an incorrect statement of law during communications with a debtor, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the debt collector cannot claim they merely misinterpreted the FDCPA in order to shield themselves from a lawsuit. The Court reasoned that ignorance of the law is no excuse when it comes to unfair debt collection tactics. A debt collector is not a fiduciary and by its own admission the debt collector has acknowledged it purposes is not that within the duties of a trustee or trustee’s agent acting in a fiduciary capacity. In allowing MERS to represent a succession of successors and assigns MERS none the less must disclose the parties of interest to who it is engaged and serves as nominee. Where MERS nominates an agent for purposes of appointing the debt sector to a fiduciary role the title company is under no obligation to release the custodial hold it has on the grant deed offered by the borrower in a nonjudicial power so sale understanding Title company the custodian is none the less compelled to reluctantly release its interest in MERS and does so upon conditioning the subsequent sale for the borrower title to realty by placing upon the deed of sale transferring deed a disclaimer to all parties which warns of the statutory non- compliance and potential for the in valid nature of the Debt collectors role as appointed by MERS or where MERS executes the assignment and grants the debt collector its authority.

MORTGAGE ASSETS FAIR VALUE

Fair Value and Historical Cost: The BasicsAccounting standard-setters have defined fair value in divergence.  All of them are essentially variations on current market value or an estimate, where a market value is unavailable or regarded as unreliable, of what the market valued be if there were a market. For this reason, fair value is also referred to as markto-market.There are various alternatives to fair value as a basis of measurement in accounts. The principal one, and in the context of the current debate the only one seriously considered as an alternative, is “historical cost”,or in the context of financial instruments, “amortized cost”. The amortised cost of financial instrumentsinvolves adjusting the original cost for subsequent cash flows (eg loan repayments) and reducing the valuefor any impairment provision (eg bad debt).

The accounting rules set out how impairment provisions must be estimated. They may be best illustrated using the example of a portfolio of mortgages, as follows:

— When there is a problem with an individual mortgage, it is reduced in value or written off entirely as a bad debt. This is sometimes called a specific provision.

— The bank may also know that there will be other problem mortgages, based on past experience, without knowing which mortgages. For example, redundancy or divorce might create problem mortgages before the bank finds out about the problems. The bank may make a provision for bad debts for these. This is sometimes called a collective impairment provision.

A bank may also expect that some of its loans will run into problems in the future, particularly in the current economic conditions. The accounting rules do not allow the bank to make a provision for future problems. This restriction on provisioning was introduced to prevent company management from manipulatingtheir profits. In the past,management was suspected of manipulating results to give smooth profits by increasing provisions in good times and releasing them in downturns. While it may be prudent to save in good times and use the savings to cushion the bad times, it  was never clear why management expected more future losses in good times than they did when things turned bad.

The method for making impairment provisions is also relevant. They are made based upon the management estimate of the
cash flows they will receive on the problem loans (payments, recoveries fromcollateral, costs). The cash flows are discounted12 according to the time that they are expected to be received.The accounting rules require the interest rate from when the instrument was first acquired to be used as thediscount rate.

We have gone into these points in some detail because it is important to understand them for the purposesof the current debate.

Fair Value and Historical Cost:
The DifferencesThere are two major diVerences between fair value accounting and historical cost accounting:

— Fair value accounting recognises gains values above their historical cost. Another way of putting this is that fair valuerecognises unrealised gains, whereas historical cost only recognises realised gains—ie, gains that arise when assets are sold.

— When assets fall in value, this is recognised under both fair value and historical cost accounting.

But whereas fair value means the assets are written down to market value (or an estimate of whatthat might be in the absence of an active market), historical cost means that assets are subject toan impairment review where there is evidence that values have dropped. There are similarities in the process for making impairment valuations and estimating market values using models. Both would estimate future cash flows and discount the cash flows to reflect the timing of payments.

There are three basic reasons why fair value and the impairment model for historical cost will have divergent values at present.  12 Discounting reflects the fact that £1 today is worth more to someone than the promise of £1 in the \future. Discounting is a process to reduce the current value of future payments to reflect the time value of money (eg inflation) and the risk that the amount will not be paid.

Business Trusts and How to Pierce the Corporate Veil

Piercing the corporate veil describes a legal decision to treat the rights or duties of a corporation as the rights or liabilities of its shareholders or directors. Courts must first decide the matter of allowing the plaintiff to allow the corporation to be treated as a separate legal person. In particular who is solely responsible for the debts it incurs and the sole beneficiary of the credit it is owed.

In this analysis we consider SOP for accounting and any thing available for mandatory reporting requirements. Clarity is important in an accredited investments and demands subject matter fact gathering. A big question is in determining if the corporation sold their interest in the asset, and transfered the subject loan? This is likley answered n advance by plaintiffs own admission found in public records and documents. The party, who originated the subject loan or claim interest in an unrecorded assignee, is the immediate successor who did transfer whole, the entire mortgage loan receivable. Now that same corporation is returning to claim the asset. The business trust’s affairs are by operation of the trustees and each appointed by a sponsor of the trust. The trustees are always a bigger Bank national Association as the “property trustee,” US Bank Trust NA is listed as a Delaware Trustee” and three or more individual trustees, or “administrative trustees,” who are employees or officers of or affiliated with US Bank.

The property trustee will act as sole trustee under the declaration of trust for purposes of compliance with the trust indenture act. This is to mean the trustee designated will also act as Trustee under the Guarantee and the Indenture. See “description of the Guarantee” in PPM and or Pooling & Servicing”. Unless an event of default under the indenture has occurred and is continuing at a time that the trust owns any “JSNH” the holders of the common securities will be entitled to appoint, remove or replace the property trustee and/or the Delaware trustee.
The property trustee and/or the Delaware trustee may be removed or replaced for cause by the holders of a majority in liquidation amount of the trust preferred securities.

In conclusion , holders of a majority interest in liquidation amount of the trust preferred securities will be entitled to appoint, remove or replace the property trustee and/or the Delaware trustee if an event of default under the indenture has occurred and is continuing.

Tagged ,

A “Deed for Bond” is Clearly Defined in Civil Code of Procedures

Requirements under mortgage Law
Validity of a Chattel Mortgage Contract
1. Stock certificates issued in formation of a trust and later sold would yield to the certificates “holder” the ownership in the assets the proceeds were used to acquire.
2. Herein the example given would be a “deed for bond” clearly defined in the states civil code of procedures governing a non judicial or the judicial, foreclosure rights.
3. The deed of trust or mortgage that is initially recorded is owned by the certificates holders. The validity of the recorded mortgage speaks unto itself as a perfected lien.
4. The certificates deemed to be “chattel” is in certain instances, made liquid under securities laws.
5. The deed for bond concept is further validated by the state enforced CCP over matter and appropriate jurisdiction.
6. Their value is marked to market, the total amount of the lien on real property and liquidity is Pro Tanto, or to that extent of the law what the bearer of the paper is entitled for like consideration.