FINDING THE "TRUST": Truth and Consequences

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary

Remember that “finding” the “trust” that “owns” the “loan” is a rabbit hole and you should not get stuck in the narrative of the banks. The truth is that we only find a pool that is called a “trust” or other entity that is probably not constituted and probably does not legally exist. The description of your “loan” as an asset in that pool is a self-serving declaration that is not supported by anything on or off record. In fact, the description of your Loan” as a “loan” may not even be correct since it more easily matches the description of a security. In either event the disclosures required under either the securities laws, the lending laws or both have not been met.

This article is directed at all those who are scratching their heads wondering what they should do, what services they require and what to do with what they have ordered. The COMBO loan specific title research and analysis is designed to take you through the first stages of getting the information you need to be able to challenge your servicer or pretender lender with facts instead of theory. The expert declaration nails down the conclusions of those facts and analyses into specific testimony that can be introduced into court as evidence. To date, we have not seen, in thousands of cases we have followed, a single expert declaration from the other side stating that our conclusions are wrong or even misleading.

There are three possible conclusions to the COMBO research:

1. The securitization documents are found and everything flows from there.
2. The securitization documents are not on public record because they used a different path, legal or not, in offering the securities that were used to form the pool of money from which fees and loans were funded.
3. The securitization documents are not found because the loan was not securitized (around 4%) of all cases, and usually we can identify those at a glance.

The problem of course is that we don’t know the result until we have done all the research. We are working on that. We are also working on something that is already in pilot, wherein we identify the probably templates used in the securitization by matching criteria from your loans with known securitized chains. From that we can give you copies of the templates that were used by the securitization PARTIES and which have a high probability (over 90%) of being identical to the one that applies to you. You might be receiving one of those in the next few days. When we “complete” a project we are still not done with it. We recognize that are pieces of information that are not in public record that would be helpful to homeowners and their lawyers. So perhaps Dan and Alex will be able to give you soemthing that we will state is true even though we don’t have the exact documents, to wit:

1. That based upon our knowledge of the parties and circumstances it is highly probable that the loan was securitized.
2. That based upon the proprietary information in our own database, we have selected the most likely template that was used for the securitization of the loan (Copies attached)
3. That based upon testimony from witnesses picked by these parties in other court proceedings we have determined that the normal practice of the industry was to if ignore the requirements of law for a transfer of the obligation, promissory note and security instrument (mortgage or deed of trust).
4. That based upon our knowledge of the industry the participants in the securitization scheme worked under two premises: (a) the actual splitting of the obligation, note and mortgage leaving it to a later time to designate a holder and (b) the dividing of the revenue stream resulting from payments made by various parties including but not limited to (a) the undisclosed yield spread premium taken from the initial investment of the investor when they believed they were purchasing a mortgage backed security or derivative the alleged borrower, (b) any payments made by or on behalf of the borrower, (c) any mitigation of apparent loss through third party payments including but not limited to insurance, credit default swaps, overcollateralization or cross collateralization. In other words it was the cash that was moved not the documents.
5. The property records show an alleged lender of record who is identified on the promissory note and the mortgage or deed of trust.
6. The actual source of funds was the investor advancing money for mortgage backed instruments or a pool of funds emanating from multiple investors, which means the funding of the loan occurred before the loan closing with the borrower and sometimes before the prospective borrower had even made application for loan.
7. Therefore we state with high degree of certainty that the lender of record (a) did not loan the money in this transaction and (b) accounted for the transaction as a fee-based service on their income statement rather than an asset (loan receivable) on their balance sheet.
8. Based on the above, the promissory note executed by borrower did not name the actual lender. This was a table-funded loan. While some of the terms of the obligation were stated on the promissory note and security instrument, the note is not the sole evidence of the obligation, nor does it provide  mechanism for computation of the balance due because of the attempted securitization of the loan package that was never completed.
9. The creditor(s) are not identified in the loan documents and are presently still unknown, although they meet the description as stated above.
10. The mortgage or security instrument recorded in the original transaction is a wild deed. Any conveyances of any interest from the alleged title interest contained in the mortgage or deed of trust is therefore void.

The above description is contained in the expert declaration that we provide. The expert declaration involves additional research and reaches expert conclusions concerning the status of the title, the obligation, the promissory note and the security instrument. The information you have been given is based upon a search of available documentation combined with our other sources. The fact that the parties used a different path here toward securitization merely means that the expert declaration is probably required — whereas our standard reporting and analysis is usually sufficient for court purposes where the “trust” can be found.

Remember that “finding” the “trust” that “owns” the “loan” is a rabbit hole and you should not get stuck in the narrative of the banks. The truth is that we only find a pool that is called a “trust” or other entity that is probably not constituted and probably does not legally exist. The description of your “loan” as an asset in that pool is a self-serving declaration that is not supported by anything on or off record. In fact, the description of your Loan” as a “loan” may not even be correct since it more easily matches the description of a security. In either event the disclosures required either under the securities laws, the lending laws or both have not been met.

Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |