Keep the envelope!!!

… the point you are (or should be) asserting is that the company being used as a source of documents and source of testimony (the apparent servicer) about the homeowner transaction had nothing to do with the origination, maintenance, administration, accounting, custody, collection or enforcement of the rights and obligations arising from the original transaction. Therefore nothing it wants to say and no document it wants to produce as a report is admissible into evidence. It is ALL HEARSAY. And if it was admitted over objection and then you develop this point, it is subject to a motion to strike, and then a motion for dismissal because there is no other evidence left to consider.

Hat tip Summer Chic

Our investigations have revealed that in more than 99% of all homeowner transactions, correspondence, notices, response to QWR, response to DVL, and response to forbearance or modification is not generated by the company claiming to be the servicer. Further, our investigations have revealed that although you might direct your letter or payment to the name of the company claiming to be a servicer, it is not received by them.

Through a network of third-party outsource contracts the actual work of receiving, depositing and disbursing the proceeds of payments is conducted by other companies. The actual work of sending you responses, correspondence and notices is also performed by third parties. And the work of accounting for payments is performed by the companies that actually received those payments — not the apparent servicer.

Those third-party companies are subject to agreements for “contract administration.”  Some of them are referred to as “corridor” agreements (most commonly with Bank of New York Mellon. None of the  third parties are subject to the control, instruction or ownership of the company that is pretending to be a servicer. Even the call center is usually manned by non   -employees or contractors of the apparent servicer. The illusion is complete. The apparent servicer is a third party to everything about the homeowner transaction but it looks like it is in charge.

Since several different companies perform different tasks that are attributed to the apparent servicer, and those companies do not communicate with each other, the responses you get will be inconsistent and even relate to the wrong transactions. It will also not be the response of an actual servicer as the term is generally understood — i.e., the company that receives and disburses money from payments received from homeowners. The structure requires one company to receive the payment, another company to account for it and still another to disburse and account for that function.

There is no signature on most correspondence you will receive because there is very little human intervention in the process. That creates a seemingly airtight argument for plausible deniability for “mistakes.” But that seal can be broken by skilled trial lawyers.

The bottom line is that you’re not corresponding with or communicating with the company claiming to be a servicer. One of the ways that you can corroborate this is by holding onto all envelopes that your receive that appear to bear the name of the company you thought was a servicer. You will note, as Summer Chic, has pointed out, that the zipcode will almost never correspond with the address of any office operated by the company claiming to be a servicer.

That corroborates but does not prove that the company is not performing servicing functions and in the courtroom, it is important to understand the difference.  But corroborating evidence is like circumstantial evidence — the more you have the more you can argue you proved the ruth of the matter you’re asserting.

And in this case, the point you are (or should be) asserting is that the company being used as a source of documents and source of testimony about the homeowner transaction had nothing to do with the origination, maintenance, administration, accounting, custody, collection or enforcement of the rights and obligations arising from the original transaction. Therefore nothing it wants to say and no document it wants to produce as a report is admissible into evidence. It is ALL HEARSAY. And if it was admitted over objection and then you develop this point, it is subject to a motion to strike, and then a motion for dismissal because there is no other evidence left to consider.

A common example to look for is who is paying the taxes. If it is CoreLogic, something is up. It obviously does not claim to be a creditor or a servicer. In discovery, the homeowner should subpoena a person from CoreLogic, duces tecum, and ask for agreements that show why CoreLogic would pay for the taxes. CoreLogic is supposedly just a computer processing company.

Click

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

• But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
• Yes you DO need a lawyer.
• If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

Posted in Uncategorized |