Tonight! Investors Are Definitely NOT Beneficiaries Neil Garfield Show

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the Neil Garfield Show

with Neil F Garfield and Bill Paatalo

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

OK this is another one I contributed to like Quiet Title. Don’t try for Quiet Title because you have a 99.99% chance of losing for good reasons that I missed when I first suggested it. 

Now stop thinking about investors as beneficiaries under a REMIC Trust (PSA), a Deed of Trust, mortgage, note, debt or anything else when it comes to residential mortgage loans — which may or may not be “loans” in any conventional sense. Just like we have torts without a name as long as you can plead duty, breach and proximately caused damages, we might  have a similar situation here with an agreement without a contract that is called a bond without any definite promise to pay. 

And the courts agree. When investors sue to take advantage of terms or provisions of the so-called trust instrument, the courts tell the investors they have no standing because they are not part of the trust instrument. They are not beneficiaries, they have no right to view the assets, or to complain about mismanagement. They waive all right, title or interest to the debts, notes and mortgages that are increasingly looking like they are not “underlying.” That word implies things that are not true. Investors never see your payment and never receive the proceeds of a foreclosure sale and neither does the so-called REMIC Trust which as I have repeatedly pointed out does no exist in most instances. 

So the investors are not part of the trust and not a part of your loan deal. For example look at this:

“No breach of contract claim under the pooling and service agreement was made by VNB against Wells Fargo because VNB, as a certificate holder, was not party to the pooling and service agreement.  VNB did argue that it was entitled to the benefits of that agreement because of its status as certificate holder, but the Court, without deciding whether VNB was entitled to those benefits or not, held that the rule prohibiting the negligence claims would still apply. VNB Realty v. US Bank, 2015 WL 8490948  (D.N.J. 12/10/15)“ 

Posted in Uncategorized |