Servicers DO NOT handle the Money or the Accounting: they only pretend to do so to offer fake business records" into court evidence

The big problem in legal practice is acceptance of the idea that the servicer is the servicer. The practice guide is simple: test that proposition before you do anything else. This is the same strategy as what the litigator should do with the REMIC Trust, the REMIC Trustee and others. None of them are doing what you think they are doing. They have only one goal — to increase revenues and profits for the “team.”

NOTE TO HOMEOWNERS: GETTING AN EXPERT OPINION IS NOT LIKE GETTING A NOTE FROM YOUR MOTHER. THE OPINION WON’T REVEAL SKULDUGGERY WITH ANYTHING LIKE THE CLARITY OBTAINED WHEN THE OPPOSITION REFUSES TO COMPLY WITH BASIC DISCOVERY DEMANDS. The grand illusion of non-securitization of debt requires the non-servicing of the non-loan. But because the actual receipt and disbursements are distributed over multiple players, none of whom know about the others, you have occasions like this where Mr. Cooper f/k/a Nationstar moved ahead with prosecuting a nonexistent claim despite multiple attempts by the homeowner to set the record straight.

In this case, Nationwide nka Mr. Cooper was hit with a large judgment for compensatory and punitive damages which they richly deserved. The lawyers boldly attempted to appeal the jury decision and lost.

The only thing missing from the whole discussion and therefore not reviewed in the courts was the question of what Nationwide was actually doing. I now reiterate my report that the entire reason for this case and many others like it is that Mr. Cooper, just like so-called REMIC Trustees is only a name under which multiple companies operate using the self-proclaimed servicer who is not a servicer as the flag while they are all operating to protect and enrich the investment bank that started the deal.

To most people outside the world of investment banking, this report is either impossible or unbelievable. I do not ask that you believe it. But basic common sense requires that you test it in QWR, DVL, and legal discovery. Wouldn’t you want to know if Mr. Cooper’s records were just printouts from multiple other third parties who are neither contractually related to Mr. Cooper nor under its control? Would that not cause you to move to strike exhibits from them and object to the introduction of evidence from them? Doesn’t this follow the heart of the hearsay rule?

The only reason these facts exist is that Nationwide was not doing anything. It was all other companies doing parts of the work on correspondence, notices, and accounting — all automated to enable the claim of plausible deniability when things blow up. May v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 852 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2017): Things like this can only happen when multiple companies are following conflicting instructions without any oversight.

May received her first mortgage statement in March 2013. The statement erroneously included thousands of dollars in “lender-paid” expenses. Also, rather than applying a $51 credit to May’s account, Nationstar improperly debited $5,162 from the account. Nationstar’s errors caused its records to incorrectly reflect a delinquency of $8,534.94 on May’s mortgage. Nationstar initiated collection efforts.

May received her first collection call from Nationstar in March 2013, the same month that she began receiving mortgage statements. May immediately contacted Nationstar, but Nationstar’s employees—acting on erroneous records—informed May that she was delinquent on her mortgage. During the next several months, May regularly received calls from Nationstar at her home, in public and, most often, at work.

In April 2013, prompted by a call from May, Nationstar submitted May’s file to its research department. Nationstar determined on May 15, 2013, that it had made an accounting error in May’s account and directed its cash department to credit the account from Nationstar’s internal bankruptcy fund. Nationstar’s cash department rejected the requested credit, however, because May had been discharged from bankruptcy and her account no longer reflected a bankruptcy code. Nationstar’s research department never followed up on this discrepancy, and Nationstar never credited May’s account.

Instead, Nationstar resumed its collection efforts and presented May with two options—vacate her home or accept a loan modification. The proposed loan modification would have added the erroneously calculated arrears to May’s principal balance. May refused, and Nationstar initiated the loan modification anyway. May repeatedly attempted to correct the accounting errors by calling and sending written complaints to Nationstar. Although May continued tendering monthly mortgage payments, Nationstar began rejecting the payments in September 2013 because its internal policy required it to accept only full payments. Nationstar deemed May’s payments insufficient because of its erroneous determination that her account was in arrears. Nationstar initiated its foreclosure process. May retained counsel.

Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

Tags: foreclosure defense
Posted in Corruption, discovery, Fabrication of documents, securities fraud |