Jan 27, 2011

ONE ON ONE WITH NEIL GARFIELD ONE ON ONE WITH NEIL GARFIELD

COMBO ANALYSIS TITLE AND SECURITIZATION

BB&T is knee deep in securitizations but it appears that nearly all of them were “private label” meaning they were not registered directly with the SEC. Hence our normal search engines are unable to find the actual securitization documents. A sweep of foreclosures in your area might reveal the underwriter (BB&T may have been the underwriter itself) or the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. We are continuing the research. Anybody with additional information please write in.

Based upon an examination of the 10k (Annual Report) of BB&T the odds are 6:1 that their involvement in a loan was the subject of securitization documents and the receivables from the loan were split up accordingly. This does not mean that in fact the loan was actually securitized — it just means that there are documents describing an “asset-backed” pool that claims to have the note and mortgage and claims an interest in the loan obligation. Based upon previous experience with thousands of such situations, it is unlikely that the the loan was ever actually transferred, delivered or indorsed or assigned within the 90-day limit imposed by the REMIC statute which is normally repeated in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

Thus the legal consequence could be (check with attorney) that the original lender of record could be wiped off the record with a quiet title action since they have no interest in the loan and would not contest that fact. Even if the declaration from the court was limited to the originator, it would give you an opportunity to show that that the note was made payable to a party who was not the lender and that the lender referenced in the mortgage was also incorrect. Thus the written instruments describe a transaction that never existed. The transaction that actually occurred was a loan to you by unidentified parties and is undocumented and therefore unsecured.