Notices To and From Servicer Might Mean Nothing at All

In homeowner finance, nearly all claims begin with notices from third parties—companies the homeowner has never dealt with before.

My advice: challenge these letters, statements, and notices immediately. Doing so creates “tracks in the sand” that can be critical later in litigation.

---

The Core Problem: Declaration of Default Without a Creditor

Foreclosure law is clear: before foreclosure, there must be a declaration of default.

But in securitization, there is no:

• Creditor

• Loan account

• Real loss (or even risk of loss) when a homeowner misses a payment

Most default declarations come from disinterested third parties with no unpaid loan account on their books. That’s legally meaningless—a “nullity.” It’s like you sending your neighbor a default notice because they didn’t pay the utility company.

---

The QWR and DVL Dilemma

Homeowners often respond with a Qualified Written Request (QWR) or Debt Validation Letter (DVL).

But here’s the danger: by sending a QWR/DVL to the named servicer, you may be tacitly admitting that they really are a servicer. That assumption carries legal implications:

• If they are a servicer, then they must be acting for a creditor.

• If there is a creditor, then a real default could exist.

This reasoning is flawed—but it’s the trap.

---

Are Named Servicers Real Servicers?

The truth: the company named as servicer rarely performs real servicing duties. Instead:

• They appear as agents of the Trustee of a REMIC trust.

• But the trustee itself has no right, power, or excuse to manage the loan account—because the loan account doesn’t exist.

So while notice to the servicer is theoretically notice to all, it may not reach any real party of interest. Still, it is notice to everyone engaged in apparent debt collection, even if no debt exists.

---

Should You Send QWRs to Everyone Involved?

Yes, sending QWRs and DVLs broadly may be smart. Anyone receiving them is effectively on notice that they could be part of future litigation.

The challenge is that consumer protection laws weren’t designed for this type of fraud. Do protections apply to a company whose name is used simply to put a face on an illegal scheme? Courts haven’t fully answered this.

---

What About Investor Payments?

Some argue that collections are legitimate because investors are paid with homeowner funds. But that argument collapses:

• Investors are only IOU holders (certificate holders).

• They waived any right, title, or interest in homeowner notes, debts, or mortgages.

• Investors get paid from the investment banker whether or not a homeowner defaults.

---

The Bottom Line

Without a creditor, loan account, or risk of loss, foreclosure collection activity is legally questionable at best.

Even in securitization, investors are paid regardless of homeowner defaults. That means many default notices and foreclosure actions are legal nullities, deserving to be challenged from the very first letter.