Switching horses: Suddenly oops we meant THAT creditor not the one we started with

If the homeowner tried anything like what the banks are doing he would be sanctioned in addition to having his claims dismissed. either you have the goods or you don’t. If the trustee did due diligence, if the servicer did due diligence then they would have in their possession BEFORE sending a Notice of Default and Notice of Sale. But they don’t perform due diligence and so nobody knows what the status is of the loan or the so-called default.

Nowhere is this more apparent than the situation, more and more common where the lawyer tries to make a “correction” to rename the creditor from one company to another. And it opens the door to expedited discovery on that issue. If they really had the goods, when they started there should be no problem in showing opposing counsel for the homeowner what they had when they started the foreclosure and what they have now. There is simply no excuse for allowing weeks or months to go by if the attorney has switched horses.

In my opinion this is an opening to demand an explanation. That demand will be met with skepticism by the trial court but not at the appellate level. You would be saying that you want to know how the mistake could have occurred and proof that there was an actual monetary transaction involving any of the parties that made claims.

Ask for an order expediting discovery on this issue. Either the lawyer did his due diligence and the trustee did his due diligence or they didn’t. If they did, then they HAD to have the necessary documents to show ownership and status of the creditor’s account (not the servicer’s account). Have any payments by the homeowner be credited to the wrong parties as a result of this “mistake?” How do we know that. Demand proof of the money trail and the accounting trail. You’ll be very surprised by what you find and so will the court.

Answer yes, they have because the actual pool is twenty times larger than the fake pool in which the loan was never transferred. There was no bank account in the name of the fake pool they are now saying owns the loan. There was only money in a big escrow account that had no accounting to go with it identifying which part of those pooled moneys belonged to what pool . That is why they have no way of knowing how the payments were credited and whether they were credited properly.

If the servicer was making payments, why wasn’t that shown in a reduction of the liability under the note and an increase of potential liability for contribution (unsecured) to the servicer. If the insurance proceeds, credit default swaps, and bailouts were paying off the creditor, why have they not reported that to the borrower, the trustee or the court?

Did agents of the creditor receive the insurance, proceeds, credit default swap payments and bailouts? were those credited to the creditor’s account? If not, why not? How much were they? Let’s see those contracts and let the court decide whether they should be credited to the creditor and thus reduce the amount demanded from the homeowners whose obligation is supposedly the source of value from which the mortgage bond owned by the investor is derived.

Tags: expedited discovery, switching creditors during litigation
Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |