The fact that a homeowner receives SOME money does not mean they received the benefit of the entire balance recited on the promissory note. Most likely they didn’t receive the entire amount and in many cases they received no benefit whatsoever.
Without retiring the old securitization infrastructure that includes false claiams of securization of debt, “refinancing” musually involves merely starting a new securitization infrastructure in addition to (not replacing) the old one.
This provides the oportunities to sell multiple versions of unregulated securities that provides Wall Street with astonishing cash flows representing a syphon on the U.S. economy.
The bad news is that they are still sucking.
Summer chic has once again provided a foundation for common sense and legal analysis of a single question: does the homeowner legally owe any debt – secured or unsecured- to any creditor?
*
1. The original transaction with the FIRST homeowner (could be in 1998) was funded via borrowed by some Investment Bank money from another investment bank where collateral was prospective sales of securities backed by information about the transaction with the homeowner.
*
Thus, it was Investment Banks’ debt to [lenders that were unknown to Homeowners] with whom homeowners had no contractual or monetary relationship at all.
*
2. Banks paid homeowners from borrowed money to execute documents called “Mortgage and Note”
*
3. Investment bank securitized information about these documents, sold this information 12 times more than paid to homeowner and repaid their creditors (from whom Investment Bank borrowed money). Lets say they repaid $2 per $1 borrowed.
*
4. After this initial Securitization was established and borrowed by Investment Bank money were repaid, all documents about this transaction were destroyed, including the original Note leaving this Bank $10 per $1 profits*
5. Question: did this FIRST homeowner had ANY debt he/she is obligated to repay? Secured or Unsecured?
*
6. Next, this first homeowner decided to sell its home to the Second Homeowner who applied to a mortgage, received a document named mortgage, signed the promissory to repay this mortgage – but no money was involved since the Securitization scheme was already established.
*
7. So, this Second homeowner did not received a cent as a “loan”, while his signature generated additional $12 per $1 based on information about the first transaction – which was funded with borrowed by Investment Bank money which were already repaid and all information about this transaction was destroyed thus no account receivable.
*
8. Question – does this Second homeowner has any debt – secured or unsecured- with any creditor?
*
9. Next, this Second homeowner sold its home to Third homeowner, who also applied for a loan, received information about money and so on. So, this Third homeowner did not received a cent from anyone, and did not paid to any prior “lenders” since here was nobody to receive this payment (except Investment Bank who get monthly payments via chain of intermediaries as additional revenue).
*Does this Third homeowner have any debt – secured or unsecured?
*
Where this unsecured debt mentioned by Elle is coming from?
*
From borrowed by Wall Street Banks money? They were repaid long time ago.
*
From payment dressed as a loan to the First homeowner? It was covered 12 times from sales of securities and this transaction does not exists on anyone’s books or records
*
From Second and Third homeowner?They did not received a cent and have no relationship to the origianl transaction – other than getting unknowingly involved in more rounds of revenues for Investment Bank
*
So, where is the DEBT? Secured or unsecured – but DEBT?*
- The current one is that there is no enforceable debt but actors are getting “relief” anyway by faking it. So no debt and no security does not equal no foreclosure unless the procedures (judicial or nonjudicial) are contested.
- The likely one, in my opinion, is that the parties are forced into the reformation of the transaction in which there is a hearing and determination in which the judge (or jury) decides on the equities. This has not yet been done. In this scenario — only applicable to those transactions in which some money was paid to or on behalf of the homeowner) recognition is given to the fact that the money was paid and the homeowner agreed to make scheduled payments regardless of whether they were legally due. Additional recognition would be given as to the value of the homeowner’s “service” in starting the securitization infrastructure and the compensation due to the homeowner for assuming hidden risks. The bottom line is that virtually all “balances” would be reduced and the transaction would be re-started with some schedule of payments that would support existing infrastructures supporting claims of securitization without collapsing them entirely.
- The absence of conditions precedent required to legally support claims of the right to administer, collect or enforce a debt, and the absence of the loan account itself, makes it impossible to legal claim that there is a debt. Since the debt is what is secured by the alleged mortgage lien, the lien would be invalid, void, or at least voidable.
3 thoughts on “Stop Assuming the Loan Account exists or that the amount reported as due is correct. It usually is not.”
Oh my God. You guys still here?
Homeowner only received any cash-out by a “refi” transaction, and for purchase – nothing. Money paid up front for purchase went nowhere known. Correct – recycled securitization. Liquidated to prior securitization as uncollectible. Nothing more than debt collection reinstated/recycled. But this is NOT for all securitization. Crisis time is the culprit. Even if occurs in other securtization – that is affirmed by government. Crisis loans were not affirmed — they exploded. TOXIC – and not due to not qualifying. Due to bad and non-existent VALID securitization. Regulation AB – tossed all.
Back to basics. The beginnings set the stage. The original note signed by property buyer states, “for value received, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged” is the basis. However, WHEN did the buyer receive this”?. He is stating he received some large value prior to this transaction and is acknowledging it, when He Never received anything. This note is written by the lender, and clearly creates the false statement to be signed by the victim. If it cannot be proved he ever received any previous “value”, then why does he sign something that admits he did? And even though he signed it, did he not sign in error? No, not if he actually did receive something of value, but if he did NOT receive that which he states he did, due to ignorance, then what? It would seem the entire transaction is void as its all based on “fruit from the poisoned tree.” Lets not forget that when he sat down at the closing table, he didn’t own the new property. In order to borrow the funds he had to pledge his ownership in a free and clear property as collateral for a loan, backed by a mortgage on that property. Exactly when and by what means did he become the owner and fully seized in that property?
We’re told, that his signature on the promissory note is converted to a cash deposit which creates a transaction account in that amount, from which checks can be drawn. In addition, we are told that the lender either uses a warehouse to borrow money for the transaction purposes, or simply sells the income stream through securitization to an investor. That investor pays the loan originator for the income stream produced by the note, and those funds are NOT given to or credited to the buyer of the property in the transaction. If the property is truly free and clear and owned by the buyer, then when does he get the funds the loan originator received through the sale in securitization. The originator had nothing invested in the deal which he sold to the investors and simply kept the money received. To make matters worse, the poor sap property buyer is never informed of his demand deposit account in the amount of the note! The lenders books would reveal a debt regarding the demand deposit, however through escheat, the lender can wipe the books clean when the deposit holder makes no claim on the funds, (he doesn’t even know about them) and the lender treats the funds as “abandoned” the turns them over to the State. Once thats done, there is no more liability on the books of lender and poof, he keeps it all with no accounting. The State does not notify the previous owner of the deposit account, and neither the State or the lender is required to notify the depositors of what’s happened. The lender gets to keep the funds from the securitization sale, wipes the liability from his books regarding the deposit account, and State gets to keep the funds in the general fund which are never requested by the depositor due his never knowing he ever had them! Works out nicely for all, except for the original dupe who continues to pay for something he already owns for the length of the mortgage.
It is a case of unjust enrichment as the lender keeps the proceeds from the investor, clearly there fraud in the entire transaction as the home buyer was never informed of all the crucial details of the contract he was entering into, if he knew all the above, it is not unreasonable to conclude that no one in their right mind would enter into such a sham.