Oct 4, 2017

People forget to ask the question “why?” Why would a mega-bank lose or claim 20 times to have lost documents relating to modification — a workout that is or was standard practice for the industry? Common sense tells us the bank would be better off with a mortgage loan that is performing than one which is foreclosed — and later abandoned under the instructions of the “bank.”

And if the banks were supposedly acting on behalf of real trusts with real beneficiaries, then the same would be true for them. So the only logical conclusion is that the bank doesn’t care about the loan; it cares about something else involving far more money than the alleged loan.

And it doesn’t care about the performance of the loan except that the bank would rather see all the loans go into foreclosure regardless of whether or not the alleged loan is declared to be in default.

Common sense tells us to look to future consequences  whereas the game being played by the banks is meant to obscure the fact that all the money they ever wanted to make has already been collected; they merely want to keep it regardless of whether or not that money was procured by outright fraud.

The answer is that the bank has already made its money and doesn’t want to lose it. THAT is the central theme. It is not about principal and interest and it never was starting with the origination and refinancing of tens of millions of alleged loans.

The bank retains far more money by misleading homeowners into foreclosure than they would make if the loans were all modified. That is because the bank made a whole lot of money even on small loans by “trading” in securities — a practice that obscures the fact that the bank was selling the same loans multiple times.

By keeping settlements and veridcts for the borrowers secret and minimizing the number of bank failures in court, the bank is able to cover up the story of how it stole money from investors, defrauded investors, and then stepped into the shoes of “beneficiaries” or “holders of certificates” using a non-existent trust which amounts to nothing more than a ficitious name under which the investment bank was operating.

There is sleight of hand at work here. People look at the individual case of one home in foreclosure when they should be looking at the entire class of homeowners in foreclosure who would have welcomed the opportunity to modify their homes.

By holding out that hope and making carefully worded statements over the phone (and never in writing) millions of homeowners have been herded like cattle over the edge of a cliff in which their financial death meant a windfall for the banks (that had already been collected) could be retained because some judge put their stamp of approval on the entire series of fraudulent actions without realizing it.

It’s the complexity or apparent complexity that leaves lawyers guessing or even assuming that the loan recited in the note, endorsement, mortgage or assignment was real. Lawyers don’t like cases where they perceive themselves as using thin technicalities to get a windfall for their client and perhaps themselves. This is a civil rights issue and lawyers would see it and know it if they did the research and analysis.

Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or info@lendinglies.com.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave a message or make payments.
OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!
https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1502204714426
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-comeuppance-for-bank-of-america_us_597d2675e4b0c69ef70528c5