Securitization Search: No, You Don't Want to Prove that the Loan is in the Pool or "Trust"

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

“Securitization is a great challenge to understand — especially since the parties in the securitization chain didn’t play by their own rules, much less obey laws, rules and regulations concerning the securitization and recording of transfers of interests in property, loans or documents.

Borrowers are frequently mislead by both the banks and servicers on the one hand, and the companies that provide support services for lawyers and property owners on the other. By listening to  Judge’s objections, attorney argument in court and reading the media, borrowers often think that it is in their interest to show that the loan is actually in the pool, trust or group specified.

This is how you lose cases for borrowers. Because all we really know is that there is a record in existence in which a loan is claimed as an asset. We don’t know how the data entry occurred much less what documents, if any, support that data entry. Where are attorneys are mistaken is that by asserting that the loan is in fact in the pool, they have waived all their objections to bad assignments, non-existent assignments, indorsements, and transfers of the obligation, note, mortgage or other documents.

The research that shows the CLAIM that the loan is in the pool accomplishes two things: (1) it shows that this pool in public records makes the claim of ownership through securitization — which might be sufficient in and of itself since the party foreclosing might have nothing whatever to do with that pool and (2) it shows whatever party is probably appropriate as a defendant or target of aggressive claims by the borrower and discovery. And one should note that the claimed existence of a pool or trust does not mean that such a pool or trust actually exists or ever existed.

So the reason you get the COMBO is to show that the are inexplicable breaks in the chain of title, and in the usual case to prove that the loan never made it into the pool, but that the money sure did. That break between the payments and the documents is what allows the aggressive attorney to make various claims of non-disclosure and false representations against the other side.

By proving that Pool XYZ is the actual claimant, and that the Pool is a REMIC which may not own or transact any business, you show that the real parties in interest are the investors. BY showing that the loan never actually made it into the pool, you show that the investors have a claim but that the original mortgage was either never perfected a as lien or that the note was split from the mortgage later. Either way the right to enforce the mortgage agreement for non-payment becomes impossible if the law is correctly applied. The last thing you want to do is paint yourself into a corner where you are asserting facts you couldn’t possibly know but which match up perfectly with the would-be foreclosers intent to foreclose.”

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 |