Tackling the Business Records of the Servicers

1. REMIC Trust and Beneficiaries (investors)
2. Master Servicer and Trust
3. Master Servicer and subservicers
4. “Borrowers” and payee on the note, and its legal successors — if there was consummation of the original loan. If not then between homeowners and investors whose money was used to fund the appearance of a loan transaction

The investors might be, as a group, called creditors — but the actual identification of those “creditors” might be incapable of determination because of the commingling of funds of investors from a multitude of Trusts and the failure to provide a clear money trail that shows the presence of one or more creditors in a specified “loan” transaction. We already know that the Trusts are never asserted to own the debt. They are alleged to be holders and not holders in due course. The trusts are “place-holders”. One thing appears certain — nobody is suggesting that the borrowers and the investors have any contractual relationship. I would suggest the homeowners and investors are the only parties who have a real relationship and that all others asserted by the banks are an illusion. This relationship between the investors and the “borrowers” is not in contract, but rather in equity.

Then the forensic analyst comes and says that there are defects, forgeries etc — an opinion upon which the CPA could rely, in saying that auditing rules, in the face of such conclusions require examinations of the actual transactions, including proof of payment. Without that, the CPA would testify, the “business records” may not be business records at all (but rather a device to create the appearance of business records, and therefore overcome the hearsay objection). The dichotomy being that the subservicer is presenting “business records” of its own and prior companies but not the business records of the foreclosing party (i.e., usually the Trust). The presence of an actual default in the accounts of the investors is debatable at best.