BOND VS NOTE: THEY DON'T MATCH UP ON PARTIES, AMOUNT OR TERMS

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

WHY BANKS WON’T LET INVESTORS MEET HOMEOWNERS

To answer a torrent of questions from lawyers, law professors and pro se litigants, let me say, in lieu of attempting to call back to hundreds of people, that the following answer to one such homeowner should set you in the right direction.

Now that they have committed themselves you are in a better position. Get the OCC consent decree against BOA and Wells and apply it to your case. example, as per US Bank attached. See also recent article on blog regarding Article 9 UCC and the recent RICO action against Chase. Follow the Chase case. The memos will be good.

BECOME A MEMBER SO YOU CAN JOIN IN ON THE DISCUSSION. Get COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS, and if we find the precise loan pool, then let’s see if it is a trust and let’s get the LOAN LEVEL ACCOUNTING. Also, if you can afford all this, you should get Forensic Analysis and Book a one hour appointment with me — but you MUST have an attorney on the phone with you for the conversation — someone who is licensed and in good standing in the jurisdiction in which this action is pending.

Just remember, if they said it, it’s probably a lie. The lawyers make it sound more threatening than it it really is.

Start at the beginning: is there a loan obligation? Answer is YES, a loan obligation was created when you accepted the benefits of the funding of the loan. Any other answer destroys your credibility.

is there a mortgage? Answer is YES a mortgage document was created and executed by the homeowner (YOU). Any other answer destroys your credibility.

Did the mortgage attach to the land as a perfected lien? Answer is NO because they faked the closing using straw-men without disclosing the lender. Any lien to be perfected must disclose the party from whom one would get a satisfaction of mortgage because (Article 9 UCC) they own the debt. This was not the case with Argent, who merely sat as a placeholder for an undisclosed lender consisting of a partnership of investor/lenders who were never disclosed either by description or name. Since Argent didn’t make the loan and nobody else was mentioned in the mortgage (deed of trust) who DID fund the loan, the mortgage exists as an unenforceable agreement predicated on false information fed to you by Argent and their representatives.

Is there a note? YES and it was signed by you but the likelihood is that the original cannot be found and anything proffered as the original is probably a recent printout from a color printer. This show me the note strategy is stretched pretty thin, so unless you got them really good on a fabrication, skip it.

MOST IMPORTANT: Does the note state the terms of the deal? NO it does not. The lender received a mortgage bond for an amount of money different from the amount loaned to the homeowner, payable by parties other than the homeowner, payable on terms that were different from the terms expressed in the note given to the borrower to sign. The homeowner was given a note that was all pretense as to parties and terms. None of the terms of repayment promised to the investors were disclosed to the borrower. The borrower never learned that he was part of a large group of obligors (payors) on conflicting obligations that often directly violated the terms of the written note itself.

The two agreements (bond vs note) don’t match, as to parties, amount or terms. Therefore while the obligation (the loan) exists, it is NOT described in any single document, nor can it be described without resorting to parol (evidence outside the four corners of the document) evidence as to the money trail and the document trail.

The lien could have been perfected if the parties, amounts and terms were disclosed to both the investor/lenders and the homeowner/borrowers but the players didn’t want to do that because they were hiding obscene profits from both contrary to the truth in lending law and the representations made to both the lenders and the borrowers. [PUT THE SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT: IF THE BORROWER SENT A REPRESENTATIVE TO SIGN THE LOAN PAPERS, WHAT WOULD THE BANK HAVE WANTED?]

This is general information and not a legal opinion. You should NOT act upon anything contained in this email without consulting competent legal counsel. Always consider the possibilities of Chapter, 7, 11 or 13 bankruptcy protection inasmuch as the Bankruptcy courts have far more familiarity with perfection of liens and priority of claims than the usual judge sitting on a state court bench.

Tags: bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, disclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND
Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |