America Lost: Florida

Showing posts with label Florida. Show all posts

Thursday, July 11, 2013

BANKS EDGE CLOSER TO THE ABYSS

I wish VT Judges had this knowledge , like the ones here and in NY.

For the second time in as many weeks a trial judge has ordered the pretender lender to execute a permanent modification based upon the borrowers total compliance with the provisions of the trial modification.This time Wells Fargo (Wachovia) was given the terms of the modification, told to put it in writing and file it. If they don't sanctions will apply just as they will be in the Florida Panhandle case we reported on last week.

Remember that before the trial modification begins the pretender lender is supposed to have done all the underwriting required to validate the loan, the value of the property, the income of the borrower etc. That is the responsibility of the lender under the Truth in Lending Act.

Of course we know that cases were instead picked at random with a cursory overview simply because there was no intention to ever give a permanent modification. Borrowers and their attorneys have known this for years. Government, always slow on the uptake, is starting to get restless as more and more Attorneys General are saying that the Banks are not complying with the intent or content of the agreement when the banks took TARP money.

The supreme irony of this case is that Wells Fargo didn't want the TARP money and was convinced to take it and accept the terms of HAMP because if only the banks that really need it took the money it was argued that this would start a run on the banks named that had to take TARP. The other ironic factoid here is that the whole issue of ownership of the loans blew up in the face of the government officers around the country that thought TARP was a good idea --- only to find out that the "toxic assets" (TARP - "Toxic Asset Relief Program") were not defaulting mortgages.

So instead of telling the banks they were liars and going after them the way Teddy Roosevelt did 100 years ago, they changed the definition of toxic assets to mean mortgage bonds.
This they thought would take care of it since the mortgage bonds were the evidence of "ownership" of the "underlying" home loans.
Then the government found out that the mortgage bonds were not failing, they were merely the subject of a declaration from the Master Servicer (a necessary and indispensable party to all mortgage litigation, in my opinion) that the value of the bond had fallen ,thus triggering payment from insurers, counterparties on credit default swaps etc to pay up to 100 cents on the dollar for each of the bonds ---
which means the receivable account from the borrower had been either extinguished or reduced through third party payment.
But by cheating the investors out of the insurance money (something the investors are taking care of right now in the courts), they thought they could keep saying the loans were in default and the mortgage bond had been devalued and thus the payment of insurance was legally valid.
BUT the real truth is that the loans had never made into the asset pools that issued the mortgage bonds.
So the TARP definitions were changed again to "whatever" and the money kept flowing to the banks while they were rolling in money from all sides --- investors, insurers, CDS counterparts, sales of the note to multiple asset pools (REMICs) and then sales of the note to the Federal Reserve for 100 cents on the dollar.
This leaves the loan receivable account in many cases in an overpaid status if one applies generally accepted accounting principles and allocates the Federal, insurance and CDS money to the bonds and the "underlying" loans.
So the Banks took the position that since the money was not coming in to cover the loans (because the loans were not in the asset pool that issued the mortgage bond and therefore the mortgage bond was NO evidence of ownership of the loan) that therefore they could apply the money any way they wanted, and that is where the government left it, to the astonishment and dismay of the the rest of the world. that is when world economies went into a nose dive.

The whole purpose of the mega banks in in entering into trial modification was actually to create the impression that the mega banks were modifying loans. But to the rest of us, the trial modification was supposed to to be last hurdle before the disaster was finally over. Comply with the payment schedule, insurance, taxes, and everything else, and it automatically becomes your permanent modification.

Not so, according to Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Chase, Citi and their brothers in arms in the false scheme of securitization. According to them they could keep the money paid by the borrower to be approved for the trial modification, keep the money paid by the borrower to comply with the terms of the trial modification and then the banks could foreclose making up any excuse they wanted to deny the permanent modification. The sole straw upon which their theory rests is that they were only obligated to "consider" the modification; according to them they were NEVER required to make it such that the modification would become permanent unless the bank expressly said so, which in most cases it does not.

When you total it all up, the Banks received a minimum of $2.50 for each loan "out there" regardless of who owns it. Under the terms of the promissory note signed by the borrower, that means the account is paid in full and then some. If the investor has not stepped up to file a competing claim against the borrower's new claim for overpayment, then the entire overage should be paid to the borrower.

The Banks want to say, like they did to the government, that the trial modification is nothing despite the presence of an offer, acceptance and consideration. To my knowledge there are at least two judges in Florida who think that is a ridiculous argument and knowing how judges talk amongst themselves behind closed doors, I would expect more of these decisions. If the borrower applies for and is approved for trial modification and they comply with the trial provisions, a contract is formed.

The foreclosure defense attorney in Palm Beach County argued SIMPLE contract. And the Judge agreed. My thought is that if you are in a trial modification get ready to hire that attorney or some other one who gets it and can cover your geographical area. Once that last payment is made, and in most cases, the payment is continued long after the trial modification period is officially over, the Bank has no equitable or legal right to deny the permanent modification.

The only caveat here is whether the Judge was correct in stating the amount of principal due without hearing evidence on third party payments and ownership of the loan. WHY WOULD THE BANK WANT LESS MONEY IN FORECLOSURE RATHER THAN MORE MONEY IN A MODIFICATION? The answer is that out of the $2.50 they received for the loan, they would be required to refund $2.50 because the Bank was supposed to be an intermediary, not a principal in the transaction. So the balance quoted by the judge without evidence was quite probably wrong by a mile.

If there is any balance it is most likely a small fraction of the original principal due on the promissory note. And, as we have been saying for years, it is most likely NOT due to the party that is entering into the modification. This last point is troubling but "apparent authority" doctrines might cover the problem.

Every time a loan does NOT go into foreclosure, the Banks' representation of defaults and the value of the loan (in order to trigger insurance and other third party payments) come under question and the prospect of disaster for the Bank rises, to wit: refunding trillions of dollars in insurance and CDS money as well as money received from co-obligors on the bond (the finished product after the note was moved through the manufacturing process of a false securitization scheme).

Every time a loan is found NOT to have actually been purchased by the asset pool (REMIC, Trust etc.) because there was no money in the asset pool and that the investors merely have an equitable right to claim the note and mortgage under constructive trust or resulting trust theories, the validity of the mortgage encumbrance fades to black. There is no such thing as an equitable mortgage lien or an equitable lien of any sort. And there is plenty of good sense and many law review articles as well as case decisions that explain why that is true.

151729746-Posti-Final-Judgment-062513

PRACTICE HINT FOR ATTORNEYS: Whether you are litigating or negotiating, send a preservation letter to every possible party or witness that might be involved. That way when you ask for production, they can't say they destroyed or lost it without facing severe consequences. It might even stop the practice of the Banks trashing all documents periodically as has been disclosed in the whistle-blower affidavits from BOA and other banks.

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

The Truth - Banks are the dead-beats not the borrowers

The Florida bill was clearly meant to speed up the "inevitable" foreclosure process, which is the wrong assumption right off the bat. If the foreclosures are wrongful we are not talking about some "i" that wasn't dotted or some "t" that wasn't crossed. We are talking about foreclosures that (a) didn't need to happen and (b) couldn't happen legally if the party bringing the foreclosure had no right to do so.

The fundamental paradigm shift that is coming is that the banks are the deadbeats, not the borrowers. The borrowers are seeking to enforce a fair deal; the banks are seeking to steal and lie their way through the PONZI scheme we called "Securitization."

Verification of the complaint has taken another bizarre turn. In reading the testimony and affidavits of those who "verified" the complaint, it turns out they signed the verification but knew nothing about the case. The only thing they verified was that the complaint contained information that was given to her or him by unknown parties through computer via a computer monitor.

Banks are using the verification aspect to bolster their false claims to the business records exception of hearsay. They are wrong and any judge who rules that is wrong if the verifier or affiant (a) is not the records custodian and (b) had no basis for personally knowing the truth. Pressed to give an accounting for how they know what they know, the verifier will answer "it's in the complaint." They often express confidence that it wouldn't be in the complaint if it wasn't true. Talk about circular logic!

The recent revelations about Bank of America are the tip of the iceberg of lying and deception that started when the first mortgage bond was sold and the first loan application was taken within the scope of the PONZI scheme that required bonds to be sold in order to make payments to the investors.

The fact that BOA told its employees to lie to customers in order to get them into foreclosure is enough to infer the truth, to wit: the goal was foreclosures and not financial recovery. How is that possible? What bank would not want the most it could get in mitigation of a "loss" it supposedly incurred as a result of a "default" by a "borrower" on a "debt" that was owed to the bank because the bank funded the origination or acquisition of the loan?

The questions answer themselves. If the Bank had a real loss they would want to mitigate the loss as quickly as possible. In the past that has always meant some sort of workout when that possible. Now we find out that BOA was paying its employees to lie and deceive the "borrowers" for the express purpose of getting the property into foreclosure even though that means getting a lot less money for the "creditor" than any modification, settlement or workout. So the answer is that they had no real loss and they must want the foreclosure for some other reason.

The "other reason" is simply that foreclosure is the cover-up for the PONZI scheme. And the government feels stuck by assurances it gave the large banks (see statements of future whistle blowers) when they forced the banks to acquire the investment banks, the aggregators and other players in this scheme, before the government knew that the scheme existed. So the government is buying up worthless mortgage bonds with no loans backing them and pretending that the bonds are really worth something. This is supposed to shore up the financial system by avoiding massive failures of the largest banks --- something that is eventually going to happen anyway because the $ trillions that were siphoned off from from investors were then siphoned off from the banks and management now controls that money.

If you look at the merger and bond activity you can see the banks acquiring other institutions in order to provide a safety valve through which part of the ill-gotten gains from the PONZI scheme can be repatriated and the "earnings" of the bank can be seen as stable or increasing even while the rest of the world goes to hell in a hand basket. (see below). The rest of the money is being controlled by a handful of people (see future whistle blowers) who are actually controlling world events by controlling the purse strings of all world economies.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory, doesn't it. Maybe a little less crazy now that we know that BOA was rewarding employees for lying to customers. And maybe a little less so now that we know the bonus was paid with a Target gift card. If it was a legitimate bonus, why use Target as the intermediary? Answer: the auditors of the bank probably would not like seeing bonuses paid to people who were supposedly working with borrowers on modification or settlement of the loan --- especially when the record shows that the bonus was for getting the case into foreclosure rather than settlement.

As you can read for yourself below, the pace of foreclosures is picking up and is going to accelerate under the new Florida law. They are in a rush to hush up any further whistle blowers who might blow the whole thing wide open. But the carrot they held out to homeowners might be the bank's undoing if the borrower moves promptly and fights the foreclosure on the basis of ownership of the loan. There is only one way to really own a loan and that is by paying for it. The argument has been rejected by many judges, but now it is right in the statute that the proof of ownership must be present as a condition precedent which means that the real burden of proof is switching back to the banks, where it belongs.

-------------------------------------------------

Danielle Kelley, Esq. June, 2013

The banks wanted this bill - so let's take a look at the "consumer friendly" portions and get ready. Keep in mind the act is remedial in nature. All complaints filed after June 7, 2013 will be subject to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff does not meet the requirements of the new bill:

1) they must give affirmative allegations that at the time foreclosure is filed they are the holder of the original note, allege with specificity the factual basis by which they are entitled to enforce the note under 673.3011 (no more either/or pleading),

3) a plaintiff given authority to sue (i.e. servicer or someone coming in with a POA like we've been seeing) - the Complaint shall describe their authority and identify with specificity the document that gives them authority to act on behalf of the Plaintiff.

Given what we know about how they verify complaints, they will have a hard road showing they can verify the plaintiff actually "has" the original note. I won't settle for anything less than a declaration that they have seen it in person - not on a computer screen. The bill states, "The term "original note" or "original promissory note" means the signed or executed promissory note rather than a copy thereof." I don't want to hear about a janitor who was adopted as assistant vice president through corporate resolution and is verifying they saw the "original note" on a screen. Keep in mind that they executed the complaints filed this month months ago - they sign right after they send off for verification usually.

If they file a lost note count they must attach an affidavit under penalty of perjury to the Complaint that

1) details a clear chain endorsements, transfers, or assignments Note;

2) set forth facts showing the Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the lost instrument (Note); and

3) attach documents to the affidavit such as copies of the Note, allonges, audit reports, or other evidence of acquisition, ownership, and possession.

Relevant portions of the bill below:

(2) A complaint that seeks to foreclose a mortgage or other lien on residential real property, including individual units of condominiums and cooperatives, designed principally for occupation by from one to four families which secures a promissory note must:

(a) Contain affirmative allegations expressly made by the plaintiff at the time the proceeding is commenced that the plaintiff is the holder of the original note secured by the mortgage; or

(b) Allege with specificity the factual basis by which the plaintiff is a person entitled to enforce the note under s. 673.3011.

(3) If a plaintiff has been delegated the authority to institute a mortgage foreclosure action on behalf of the person entitled to enforce the note, the complaint shall describe the authority of the plaintiff and identify, with specificity, the document that grants the plaintiff the authority to act on behalf of the person entitled to enforce the note. This subsection is intended to require initial disclosure of status and pertinent facts and not to modify law regarding standing or real parties in interest. The term "original note" or "original promissory note" means the signed or executed promissory note rather than a copy thereof. The term includes any renewal, replacement, consolidation, or amended and restated note or instrument given in renewal, replacement, or substitution for a previous promissory note. The term also includes a transferable record, as defined by the Uniform Electronic Transaction Act in s. 668.50(16).

(4) If the plaintiff is in possession of the original promissory note, the plaintiff must file under penalty of perjury a certification with the court, contemporaneously with the filing of the complaint for foreclosure, that the plaintiff is in possession of the original promissory note. The certification must set forth the location of the note, the name and title of the individual giving the certification, the name of the person who personally verified such possession, and the time and date on which the possession was verified. Correct copies of the note and all allonges to the note must be attached to the certification. The original note and the allonges must be filed with the court before the entry of any judgment of foreclosure or judgment on the note.

(5) If the plaintiff seeks to enforce a lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument, an affidavit executed under penalty of perjury must be attached to the complaint. The affidavit must:

(a) Detail a clear chain of all endorsements, transfers, or assignments of the promissory note that is the subject of the action.

(b) Set forth facts showing that the plaintiff is entitled to enforce a lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument pursuant to s. 673.3091. Adequate protection as required under s. 673.3091(2) shall be provided before the entry of final judgment.

(c) Include as exhibits to the affidavit such copies of the note and the allonges to the note, audit reports showing receipt of the original note, or other evidence of the acquisition, ownership, and possession of the note as may be available to the plaintiff.

(6) The court may sanction the plaintiff for failure to comply with this section.