What Is an Assignment of Mortgage?

Before heading to court - Make sure all your ducks are lined up in a row. Starting here, than pray you have a Judge who knows the law and follows it. Unfortunately for me, mine did neither .

What Is an Assignment of Mortgage?

An assignment of mortgage is a document which indicates that a mortgage has been transferred from the original lender or borrower to a third party. Assignments of mortgage are more commonly seen when lenders sell mortgages to other lenders. When someone has what is known as an assumable mortgage, it is possible for the borrower to transfer the mortgage to another person, in which case an assignment of mortgage will need to be filed to record the transaction.

This document indicates that the loan obligation has been transferred. It usually describes the property so that there is no confusion about which piece of real estate is under discussion. It should include the name of the original party, along with the name of the third party, with contact information and the date that the assignment of mortgage becomes valid. In the case of an assignment of mortgage between lenders, the document notes the identity of the borrower, while assumed mortgages identify the lender and indicate that the transfer took place between borrowers.

Lenders routinely sell mortgages, and in fact a mortgage may be transferred multiple times before it has been paid off. Lenders are not required to notify borrowers when they sell mortgages, and borrowers do not have an opportunity to contest the sale. The new lender is required to send out a notification indicating that a sale took place and providing information about how to make mortgage payments to the new lender. The borrower may attempt to negotiate a change in terms, or if the borrower does not want to work with the new lender, it may be possible to apply for a new mortgage to pay off the old one.

With an assumable mortgage, the issue is a bit trickier. Lenders do not want borrowers to assign their mortgages to people who cannot keep up with the payments, as then they will be faced with having to foreclose and sell the property, and this adds to the expense of servicing the loan. As a result, people who wish to assume a mortgage must demonstrate that they are financially capable of taking on the loan, and that they fully understand the terms of the loan.

An assignment of mortgage will be filed in the same government office which handles ownership records, property taxes, and related matters. People should be aware that sometimes an assignment of mortgage is not recorded for several months, especially if there is a backlog of documenting material which needs to be gone through. ( In my case DB Structured Products claimed to of own my note since Sept 2006, however , an Assignment of Mortgage was never recorded by them or recieved by Long Beach or Wamu and  they were still able to sell it, and my VT Judge accepted it! )

If borrowers receive a notice in the mail indicating that their mortgage has been transferred, they should call their lenders to confirm the sale and ask who the mortgage was sold to. It is also advisable to check the records office to confirm that an assignment of mortgage has been followed. Borrowers should be aware that some scammers prey on people by claiming that their mortgages have been transferred when this is not actually the case.

What Is an Assignment of Mortgage?

An assignment of mortgage is a document which indicates that a mortgage has been transferred from the original lender or borrower to a third party. Assignments of mortgage are more commonly seen when lenders sell mortgages to other lenders. When someone has what is known as an assumable mortgage, it is possible for the borrower to transfer the mortgage to another person, in which case an assignment of mortgage will need to be filed to record the transaction.

This document indicates that the loan obligation has been transferred. It usually describes the property so that there is no confusion about which piece of real estate is under discussion. It should include the name of the original party, along with the name of the third party, with contact information and the date that the assignment of mortgage becomes valid. In the case of an assignment of mortgage between lenders, the document notes the identity of the borrower, while assumed mortgages identify the lender and indicate that the transfer took place between borrowers.

Lenders routinely sell mortgages, and in fact a mortgage may be transferred multiple times before it has been paid off. Lenders are not required to notify borrowers when they sell mortgages, and borrowers do not have an opportunity to contest the sale. The new lender is required to send out a notification indicating that a sale took place and providing information about how to make mortgage payments to the new lender. The borrower may attempt to negotiate a change in terms, or if the borrower does not want to work with the new lender, it may be possible to apply for a new mortgage to pay off the old one.

With an assumable mortgage, the issue is a bit trickier. Lenders do not want borrowers to assign their mortgages to people who cannot keep up with the payments, as then they will be faced with having to foreclose and sell the property, and this adds to the expense of servicing the loan. As a result, people who wish to assume a mortgage must demonstrate that they are financially capable of taking on the loan, and that they fully understand the terms of the loan.

An assignment of mortgage will be filed in the same government office which handles ownership records, property taxes, and related matters. People should be aware that sometimes an assignment of mortgage is not recorded for several months, especially if there is a backlog of documenting material which needs to be gone through.

If borrowers receive a notice in the mail indicating that their mortgage has been transferred, they should call their lenders to confirm the sale and ask who the mortgage was sold to. It is also advisable to check the records office to confirm that an assignment of mortgage has been followed. Borrowers should be aware that some scammers prey on people by claiming that their mortgages have been transferred when this is not actually the case.

- See more at: http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/what-is-an-assignment-of-mortgage/#sthash.u8x3GWMN.dpuf

Following via: law.justia.com

CHAPTER 701

ASSIGNMENT AND CANCELLATION OF MORTGAGES

701.01  Assignment.

701.02  Assignment not effectual against creditors unless recorded and indicated in title of document; applicability.

701.03  Cancellation.

701.04  Cancellation of mortgages, liens, and judgments.

701.041  Title insurer; mortgage release certificate.

701.06  Certain cancellations and satisfactions of mortgages validated.

701.01  Assignment.–Any mortgagee may assign and transfer any mortgage made to her or him, and the person to whom any mortgage may be assigned or transferred may also assign and transfer it, and that person or her or his assigns or subsequent assignees may lawfully have, take and pursue the same means and remedies which the mortgagee may lawfully have, take or pursue for the foreclosure of a mortgage and for the recovery of the money secured thereby.

History.–s. 1, Dec. 11, 1834; RS 1985; GS 2498; RGS 3840; CGL 5743; s. 782, ch. 97-102.

701.02  Assignment not effectual against creditors unless recorded and indicated in title of document; applicability.–

(1)  An assignment of a mortgage upon real property or of any interest therein, is not good or effectual in law or equity, against creditors or subsequent purchasers, for a valuable consideration, and without notice, unless the assignment is contained in a document that, in its title, indicates an assignment of mortgage and is recorded according to law.

(2)  This section also applies to assignments of mortgages resulting from transfers of all or any part or parts of the debt, note or notes secured by mortgage, and none of same is effectual in law or in equity against creditors or subsequent purchasers for a valuable consideration without notice, unless a duly executed assignment be recorded according to law.

(3)  Any assignment of a mortgage, duly executed and recorded according to law, purporting to assign the principal of the mortgage debt or the unpaid balance of such principal, shall, as against subsequent purchasers and creditors for value and without notice, be held and deemed to assign any and all accrued and unpaid interest secured by such mortgage, unless such interest is specifically and affirmatively reserved in such an assignment by the assignor, and a reservation of such interest or any part thereof may not be implied.

(4)  Notwithstanding subsections (1), (2), and (3) governing the assignment of mortgages, chapters 670-680 of the Uniform Commercial Code of this state govern the attachment and perfection of a security interest in a mortgage upon real property and in a promissory note or other right to payment or performance secured by that mortgage. The assignment of such a mortgage need not be recorded under this section for purposes of attachment or perfection of a security interest in the mortgage under the Uniform Commercial Code.

(5)  Notwithstanding subsection (4), a creditor or subsequent purchaser of real property or any interest therein, for valuable consideration and without notice, is entitled to rely on a full or partial release, discharge, consent, joinder, subordination, satisfaction, or assignment of a mortgage upon such property made by the mortgagee of record, without regard to the filing of any Uniform Commercial Code financing statement that purports to perfect a security interest in the mortgage or in a promissory note or other right to payment or performance secured by the mortgage, and the filing of any such financing statement does not constitute notice for the purposes of this section. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “mortgagee of record” means the person named as the mortgagee in the recorded mortgage or, if an assignment of the mortgage has been recorded in accordance with this section, the term “mortgagee of record” means the assignee named in the recorded assignment.

History.–s. 1, ch. 6909, 1915; RGS 3841; CGL 5744; s. 13, ch. 20954, 1941; s. 2, ch. 89-41; s. 20, ch. 2005-241.

701.03  Cancellation.–Whenever the amount of money due on any mortgage shall be fully paid, the mortgagee or assignee shall within 60 days thereafter cancel the same in the manner provided by law.

History.–RS 1986; GS 2499; RGS 3842; CGL 5745; s. 171, ch. 73-333.

701.04  Cancellation of mortgages, liens, and judgments.–

(1)  Within 14 days after receipt of the written request of a mortgagor, the holder of a mortgage shall deliver to the mortgagor at a place designated in the written request an estoppel letter setting forth the unpaid principal balance, interest due, and the per diem rate. Whenever the amount of money due on any mortgage, lien, or judgment shall be fully paid to the person or party entitled to the payment thereof, the mortgagee, creditor, or assignee, or the attorney of record in the case of a judgment, to whom such payment shall have been made, shall execute in writing an instrument acknowledging satisfaction of said mortgage, lien, or judgment and have the same acknowledged, or proven, and duly entered of record in the book provided by law for such purposes in the proper county. Within 60 days of the date of receipt of the full payment of the mortgage, lien, or judgment, the person required to acknowledge satisfaction of the mortgage, lien, or judgment shall send or cause to be sent the recorded satisfaction to the person who has made the full payment. In the case of a civil action arising out of the provisions of this section, the prevailing party shall be entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.

(2)  Whenever a writ of execution has been issued, docketed, and indexed with a sheriff and the judgment upon which it was issued has been fully paid, it shall be the responsibility of the party receiving payment to request, in writing, addressed to the sheriff, return of the writ of execution as fully satisfied.

History.–s. 1, ch. 4138, 1893; s. 1, ch. 4918, 1901; GS 2500; RGS 3843; CGL 5746; s. 1, ch. 80-17; s. 15, ch. 93-250; s. 12, ch. 94-170.

701.041  Title insurer; mortgage release certificate.–

(1)  DEFINITIONS.–For purposes of this section:

(a)  ”Mortgage” means a mortgage or mortgage lien on an interest in real property in this state, including any modifications thereof, given to secure a loan in the principal amount of $500,000 or less, other than a mortgage securing an open-end or revolving credit agreement.

(b)  ”Mortgagee” means:

1.  The grantee of a mortgage; or

2.  If a mortgage has been assigned of record, the last person to whom the mortgage has been assigned of record.

(c)  ”Mortgage servicer” means the last person to whom a mortgagor or the mortgagor’s successor in interest has been instructed by a mortgagee to send payments on a loan secured by a mortgage. A person transmitting a payoff statement is the mortgage servicer for the mortgage described in the payment statement.

(d)  ”Mortgagor” means the grantor of a mortgage.

(e)  ”Payoff statement” means a statement of the amount of:

1.  The unpaid balance of a loan secured by a mortgage, including principal, interest, and any other charges properly due under or secured by the mortgage.

2.  Interest on a per-day basis for the unpaid balance.

(f)  ”Record” means to record with the clerk of the circuit court or the comptroller in the county or counties in which the real property securing the mortgage is located.

(g)  ”Title insurer” means a corporation or other business entity authorized and licensed to transact the business of insuring titles to interests in real property in this state under chapter 624.

(2)  CERTIFICATE OF RELEASE.–An officer or duly appointed agent of a title insurer may, on behalf of a mortgagor or a person who acquired from the mortgagor title to all or a part of the property described in a mortgage, execute a certificate of release that complies with the requirements of this section and record the certificate of release in the real property records of each county in which the mortgage is recorded if a satisfaction or release of the mortgage has not been executed and recorded after the date payment in full of the loan secured by the mortgage was made in accordance with a payoff statement furnished by the mortgagee or the mortgage servicer.

(3)  CONTENTS.–A certificate of release executed under this section must contain:

(a)  The name of the mortgagor, the name of the original mortgagee, and, if applicable, the mortgage servicer; the date of the mortgage; the date of recording; and the volume and page or document number in the real property records in which the mortgage is recorded, together with similar information for the last recorded assignment of the mortgage.

(b)  A statement that the mortgage, including any modifications thereof, was in the principal amount of $500,000 or less.

(c)  The name of the title insurer filing the certificate of release, a statement that the person executing the certificate of release is an officer or a duly appointed agent of the title insurer, a statement that the title insurer is authorized and licensed to transact the business of insuring titles to interests in real property in this state under chapter 624 or chapter 626, and, if executed by a duly appointed agent, shall further provide the recording information of the appointment of such agent as required by subsection (4).

(d)  A statement that the certificate of release is made on behalf of the mortgagor or a person who acquired title from the mortgagor to all or a part of the property described in the mortgage.

(e)  A statement that the mortgagee or mortgage servicer provided a payoff statement which was used to make payment in full of the unpaid balance of the loan secured by the mortgage.

(f)  A statement that payment in full of the unpaid balance of the loan secured by the mortgage was made in accordance with the payoff statement and that a copy of the certificate of release was sent to the mortgagee or mortgage servicer that provided the payoff statement.

(4)  EXECUTION.–

(a)  A certificate of release authorized by subsection (2) must be duly executed, sworn to or affirmed under penalty of perjury before a notary public, and recorded and may be executed by an officer of a title insurer or by a duly appointed agent of a title insurer. Such delegation to an agent by a title insurer shall not relieve the title insurer of any liability for damages caused by the agent for the execution or recordation of a certificate of release.

(b)  The appointment of an agent must be duly executed, acknowledged, and recorded by an officer of a title insurer and must state:

1.  The title insurer as the principal.

2.  The identity of the person, partnership, or corporation authorized to act as agent to execute and record certificates of release provided for in this section on behalf of the title insurer.

3.  That the agent has the full authority to execute and record certificates of release provided for in this section on behalf of the title insurer.

(c)  A separate appointment of agent shall not be necessary for each certificate of release provided that at least one such appointment is recorded in the county in which the mortgaged property is located. The appointment of agent must be rerecorded where necessary to establish authority of the agent, but such authority shall continue until a revocation of appointment is recorded in the office of the county recorder in which the appointment of agent was recorded.

(d)  After recordation of a title insurer’s revocation of appointment in the office of the county recorder in which the appointment was recorded, the agent whose appointment is revoked in such county shall have no further authority to execute or record certificates of release as provided in this section on behalf of that title insurer with respect to any mortgages recorded in that county, and no such certificate of release thereafter executed or recorded by that agent on behalf of that title insurer shall be effective to release any mortgage recorded in that county.

(5)  EFFECT.–For purposes of releasing the mortgage, a certificate of release containing the information and statements provided for in subsection (3) and executed as provided in subsection (4) is entitled to be recorded with the county recorder and operates as a release of the mortgage described in the certificate of release. The county recorder shall rely upon the certificate to release the mortgage. Recording of a certificate of release by a title insurer or its agent shall not relieve the mortgagor, or the mortgagor’s successors or assigns, from any personal liability on the loan or other obligations secured by the mortgage. A certificate of release recorded pursuant to this section fulfills any other obligation of the mortgagee or mortgage servicer to file a satisfaction or release of the mortgage.

(6)  LIABILITY OF TITLE INSURER.–

(a)  In addition to any other remedy provided by law, a title insurer recording a certificate of release under this section shall be liable to the holder of the obligation secured by the mortgage for actual damage sustained due to the recording of the certificate of release. Reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees shall be awarded to the prevailing party.

(b)  The title insurer named in a certificate of release filed by a duly appointed agent shall be liable pursuant to this subsection without regard to whether the title insurer authorized the specific certificate of release recorded by the agent.

(c)  The title insurer shall have no liability under this subsection if the title insurer shows that payment in full of the unpaid balance of the loan secured by the mortgage was made in accordance with the payoff statement furnished by the mortgagee or the mortgage servicer.

(d)  Liability of a title insurer pursuant to this section shall be considered to be a title insurance claim on real property in this state pursuant to s. 627.7865.

(7)  RECORDING.–If a mortgage is recorded in more than one county and a certificate of release is recorded in one of such counties, a certified copy of the certificate of release may be recorded in another of such counties with the same effect as the original. In all cases, the certificate of release shall be entered and indexed as satisfactions of mortgage are entered and indexed.

(8)  APPLICATION.–This section applies only to a mortgage, including any modifications of such mortgage, in the principal amount of $500,000 or less.

(9)  PREMIUM.–The Financial Services Commission shall adopt rules establishing an actuarially sound premium charge to be made for each certificate of release recorded pursuant to this section.

History.–s. 1, ch. 2005-122.

701.06  Certain cancellations and satisfactions of mortgages validated.–All cancellations or satisfactions of mortgages made prior to the enactment of chapter 4138, Acts of 1893, by the mortgagee or assignee of record of such mortgage entering same on the margin of the record of such mortgage in the presence of the custodian of such record and attested by the said custodian and signed by said mortgagee or assignee of record of such mortgage, shall be valid and effectual for every purpose as if the same had been done subsequent to the enactment of chapter 4138, Acts of 1893.

The US BANK-BOA-LaSalle-CitiGroup Shell Game

What a shell game this is.. Many thanks to Neil for his undying efforts to save us.

The US BANK-BOA-LaSalle-CitiGroup Shell Game

by Neil Garfield

'The bottom line is that the notice of substitution of Plaintiff in judicial states, or notice of substitution of Trustee in non-judicial states should be the first line of battle. Neither one of them is valid and in both cases you have a stranger to the transaction being allowed to name itself as creditor, name its own controlled entity or subsidiary as trustee, and then ignore the realities of the money paid to the real creditor. They are claiming damages from the borrower --- all for a debt that in the ordinary course of things has already been paid several times over. But it is true that it wasn't paid to THEM because THEY were never and are not now the creditor fulfilling the definition of a creditor who could bid at the foreclosure auction. It is not that the borrower doesn't owe money when he borrows it, it is that he doesn't owe it to any of the people who are claiming it. And that is what gives rise to liability of law firms to borrowers." Neil F Garfield, http://www.livinglies.me

If our information can be corroborated through discovery with a corporate representative of US BANK or Chase Bank as the servicer, it is possible that a solid cause of action can be filed against the law firm that brought the action, particularly if the law firm took its instructions from the Desktop system of LPS.

In that system law firms are instructed to file foreclosures without contact with the actual client. We saw several cases where sanctions were levied against lawyers and their alleged clients, but none so stark as the one in Florida where the lawyer for US Bank as Trustee for XXX, when faced with questions he couldn't answer admitted that he had never spoken with anyone from U.S> Bank and didn't know who had retained his firm.

The law firm that brought the foreclosure action and especially the law firm that is demanding an assignment of rent to protect a creditor who has already been paid through non stop servicer advances was most likely not authorized to demand the assignment of rents which might be why there was no written demand as required by statute. I am considering the possibility of an actual lawsuit against one such law firm for interference with contract on both the foreclosure and the assignment of rents issue.

The Banks are being very cagey about this system --- one which they would never use for their own portfolio loans, which begs the question of why they would have two entirely different system of accounting and legal process. But the long and the short of it is that LPS in Jacksonville, Florida is used much the same way as MERS. It maintains a database service that requires a user name and password and that gives unlimited access to the client folders. Anyone can go in and authorize the foreclosure based upon a default that is invested by the person entering the data. They leave out any servicer advances or other third party payments and arrive at an amount to reinstate that is just plain wrong. So virtually all notices of default are wrong which means that the required notice is defective.

You should know that many judges appear unimpressed that there was no valid assignment of the mortgage. I think that it is clearly reversible error. The assignment frequently is clearly fabricated and back-dated because of references to events that happened a year after the assignment was executed. The assignment clearly did not exist at the time of the lawsuit and the standing issue is clear under Florida law although some courts are balking at the idea that standing cannot be cured after the lawsuit. The reasoning is quite simple --- if it were otherwise, you could file suit against a grocery store for a slip and fall, and the go over to the store to have your slip and fall.

In one of my cases involving multiple properties, they have an assignment that was prepared and executed by Shapiro and Fishman supposedly dated in 2007 ---- but it refers to Bank of America as successor by merger to LaSalle. it is backdated, fabricated and fictional, which is to say, fraudulent.

The assignment has two problems --- FACIALLY DEFECTIVE FABRICATION OF ASSIGNMENT:  the first problem is that the alleged BOA merger with LaSalle could not have happened before 2008 --- one year after the assignment was executed. So the 2007 assignment refers to a future event that was not reported by BOA until 2008, and was not approved by the Federal Reserve until 2008. On its face, then, based upon public record, the assignment is void as a total fabrication.

The second problem is that it is unclear as to how the merger could have occurred between BOA and La Salle, to wit:. you might need to read this a few times to understand the complexity of the issues involved --- issues that few judges or lawyers are interested enough to master.

LASALLE ABN AMRO ACQUISITION: Since neither entity vanished in the deal it is an acquisition and not a merger. LaSalle and ABN AMRO did a reverse merger in 2007.

That means that while LASalle was technically the acquirer, because it "bought" ABN AMRO, and ABN AMRO became a subsidiary --- the reality is that LaSalle issued so many shares for the acquisition of ABN AMRO that the ABN AMRO shareholders received the overwhelming majority of LaSalle Shares compared to the former owners of LaSalle shares.

Hence in substance LaSalle Bank was a subsidiary of ABN AMRO and the consolidated financial statements show it. But in form it appears as the parent.

So if someone, like BOA, was to say they merged with or acquired LaSalle, they would also be saying that included its subsidiary ABN AMRO --- and they would have to do the deal with the shareholders of ABN AMRO because those shareholders control LaSalle Bank, which brings us to CitiGroup ----

CITIGROUP MERGER WITH ABN AMRO: Also in 2007, CitiGroup announced and continues to file sworn statements with the SEC that it had merged with ABN AMRO, which means, if you followed the above, that CitiGroup actually owned LaSalle. It looks more like an acquisition than a merger to me but the wording makes it unclear. This would mean that LaSalle still technically exists as a subsidiary of  CitiGroup.

ALLEGED BOA MERGER WITH LASALLE: In 2008 the Federal Reserve issued an order approving the merger of BOA and LaSalle, in which case LaSalle vanishes --- but ABN AMRO is the one with all the assets. BUT LaSalle is named as Trustee of the asset pool. And the only other allowable trustee would be another bank that merged with LaSalle as a successor without the requirement of filing more papers to be a Trustee and BOA clearly qualifies on all counts for that. Section 8.09 of PSA.

But the Federal Reserve order states that the identities of ABN AMRO and LaSalle are the same and the acquisition of one is the acquisition of the other --- thus unintentionally ratifying CitiGroup's apparent position that it owns ABN AMRO and thus LaSalle.

Findings of fact by an administrative agency are presumptively true although subject to rebuttal.

Here is the kicker: there is no further mention in any SEC filings of a merger between BOA and LaSalle, unless I missed it. There is no reference to the fact that CitiGroup controlled LaSalle and ABN AMRO at the time of the Federal Reserve order approving the BOA merger with LaSalle Bank in 2008.

CitiGroup has not, to my knowledge ever reported the sale or loss or merger of LaSalle. Since Citi made the acquisition before BOA, and since BOA apparently did not buy LaSalle from Citi, how could BOA claim to be a successor by merger with LaSalle?

Hence there are questions of fact as to whether BOA ever consummated any transaction in which it acquired or Merged with LaSalle, which while technically possible, makes no business sense. UNLESS the OBJECTIVE was to transfer the interest of LaSalle as trustee to BOA, as a precursor to a much wider deal in which BOA then sold its position as Trustee to US Bank as a  commodity and then filed in the Kalam cases a notice of substitution of Plaintiff without amending the pleadings.

US BANK Notice of Substitution of Plaintiff without Any Motion to Amend Pleadings: The reason they filed it as a notice was that they obviously did not want to allege the purchase of "being a trustee", which would have been a contested issue in the pleadings. But the amendment is required in my opinion and there should be a motion to strike the notice of substitution of Plaintiff without amendment. The motion to strike should state that no objection to granting the order to amend, but that the circumstances should be pled and we should be able to respond with a denial and affirmative defenses if you choose.

Wamu Breaking news

Who knows what will happen when all is said and done.. Just might be that Karma will hit many, namely Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan and Chase. One can only hope.



Bloomberg News
DEC 3, 2013 12:58pm ET
Ex-WaMu CEO Said to be Near Settlement in Bank Failure


Former Washington Mutual Inc. Chief Executive Officer Kerry Killinger and two other bank officials are in settlement talks with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the last chapter in the government’s probe of the largest U.S. bank failure.

The regulator is weighing a settlement with Killinger, former chief operating officer Stephen Rotella and David Schneider, former head of the home-loan division, over claims they mismanaged the Seattle-based thrift, according to a person who was briefed and spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks aren’t public.

The person, who said the talks have entered the final stage, didn’t describe the terms being discussed. The details of a deal would need the approval of senior OCC officials.

Washington Mutual, which was the nation’s largest savings and loan and one of the largest subprime lenders, became a public symbol of the excesses of the housing bubble. The thrift and its subprime arm “engaged in a host of shoddy lending practices that contributed to a mortgage time bomb,” the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said in a 2011 report.

The bank was seized by regulators in September 2008 after reporting that it faced $19 billion in losses from soured mortgages. JPMorgan Chase & Co. bought remnants of the thrift and has since struggled to unwind itself from liability for Washington Mutual’s faults.

In 2011, Killinger, Rotella and Schneider reached a $64 million settlement with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which liquidated the bank. The FDIC sued the three executives for failing to tend to the thrift’s safety while they received more than $95 million in compensation from 2005 until its collapse. Most of their payments under the settlement were covered by Washington Mutual’s insurance policy.

The OCC’s separate investigation stems from the agency’s 2011 merger with the Office of Thrift Supervision, which had supervised Washington Mutual.

Daniel W. Turbow, a lawyer at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati who has represented Killinger, declined to comment. Rotella, now CEO of New York-based StoneCastle Cash Management LLC, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Schneider, who until this year was CEO of Vericrest Financial Inc., an Irving, Texas, mortgage servicer, didn’t return a message left at a phone number listed to his name in New Jersey.

Bryan Hubbard, an OCC spokesman, declined to comment on the talks.

A Justice Department investigation into Washington Mutual ended in August 2011 without charges filed.

The report from the Senate panel, which is led by Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, found that Washington Mutual “produced hundreds of billions of dollars of poor quality loans that incurred early payment defaults, high rates of delinquency, and fraud.”

Killinger advised his bank’s board in June 2006 that the company should be “in position to grow its market share” in high-risk lending—including subprime loans—according to an internal memo published in the Senate investigation. The report said Killinger pushed a plan to “significantly curtail” low-margin, safer loans in a shift toward higher risk.

Two months earlier, Schneider had given a presentation suggesting the bank should almost double its subprime volume by 2008, according to the Senate report. Emails between Rotella and Killinger in 2005 showed Rotella also encouraging subprime and home equity loan growth, according to the report.

Killinger said in court filings in the FDIC lawsuit that examiners from the FDIC and OTS were stationed at the bank and were aware “in real time” of business decisions the FDIC later challenged. Killinger, Washington Mutual’s CEO for 18 years, told Levin’s panel in 2010 that his bank could have survived the crisis but U.S. officials denied Washington Mutual help offered to other financial firms.

The bank—in business for 119 years—had enjoyed a string of acquisitions and explosive growth in its final years, adopting a new advertising slogan in the months before its collapse: “Whoo hoo!” In U.S. history, the scale of its bankruptcy was eclipsed only by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

JPMorgan, as part of its $13 billion settlement with the government last month, agreed it wouldn’t continue to press the FDIC to cover some of the losses from defective mortgage securities sold by Washington Mutual before it was acquired.

How and Why is US Bank becoming the trustee of all the REMIC Trusts?

Great question, seeings how they now have mine. Chase , is up to its neck in this one.

US bank is popping up as the substitute Plaintiff in cases I have where BOA claimed to be the trustee of the REMIC Trust by virtue of being a "successor by merger." Now I see them popping up where Chase was the Plaintiff. In all cases the bank originally filed under an assumed name by renting the name of someone else or by claiming to own the loan themselves. Now they are under the administration and under the coordination of what I believe to be the Chicago law firm that coordinated the first burst of Aurora strawmen when Aurora itself was a strawman for Lehman Brothers. The object I suspect is centralization of all the trustee positions into US Bank.

The next logical step would be bankruptcy to end of the claims for breach of fiduciary duty. But that option won't work because of the amount of assets and income US Bank is claiming now. So the only thing left for them to do is dilute the liability into virtually nothing. And the only way to do that is package up the income streams and, as you might have guessed, securitize those packages and sell the securitized packages with insurance and indemnification --- the same way they layered over the sale of the trustee positions from BOA. The object I can tell you from experience is to make it so complex that they create a grey area in the law or rather the appearance of a gray area just like they are doing successfully with the mortgages and the Foreclosures. They are nothing if not consistent.

There is, so far, one chink in the armor that I have detected or maybe two. The first is that the PSA does not generally give the Trustee of the REMIC Trust the power or even the right to inquire about Foreclosures although that hasn't stopped US bank from claiming to be the Plaintiff in foreclosure actions. The second is the issue of whether the sale of the trustee's position is allowed under the governing law (New York usually) since it is contrary to the express terms of provisions in the PSA. Those provisions identify the trustee and allow only for succession by merger, which is why the banks were all claiming that. The question of law that will be the battleground is whether homeowners have standing to challenge that sale and whether the courts are going to take a disliking to the sale by the trustee of its duties and revenue. As I explained yesterday, such a precedent will cause uncertainty and chaos in the marketplace not only with trusts. It will also be used to commoditize other things that we take for granted are not for sale.

All of this relates to an earlier post I made about the Pope's comment about the idolatry of money. His point is well taken. Instead of actions being taken that are acceptable under moral standards or legal standards, these banks have us thinking that somehow the world will be better if we put a metric or value on everything and anything, thus raising moral hazard as a goal rather than a limit on human behavior. And you might find them arguing that none of it matters because the trustee has no powers anyway. This would be a foolish argument that might invite the ire of the judiciary.

The bottom line is that they are trying to undermine the whole standing issue and the relevance of ownership of the loan. Under the standards being set by the banks if you can find any debtor then anyone can collect from the debtor if they get to him first. In short, this is nuts.

 by Neil Garfield

Fake Mortgages Used for Money Laundering

Well, for some it will be hard to wrap your heads around this , for others it will be like a light . Its not just BOA, its all of them, and the worst is Deutsche Bank, now known to many as Blackstone, or DB Structured Products were the past thieves. You can change the names but its all gooes back to the original KING OF FORECLOSURES, they lied and decieved many, and stoled houses that weren't theres, now they are renting them, and selling that on the stock market. How much longer before the FEDS wake up and see this is going to end badly again.

Fake Mortgages Used for Money Laundering at BOA by Neil Garfield

Darlene Spencer wrote an excellent piece in a comment on our Facebook page. I had heard rumblings from inside the industry when HSBC got tagged for laundering money for terrorists et al. But thus far I have come up with no actual corroborative evidence, which is why I didn't write about it. Darlene explains it so well that I thought I would post it on the blog. I guess the most frustrating thing for us is the total apathy or complicity of government in failing to prosecute those responsible in the banking industry for the gutting of the world economy. The Banks operate in a world of their own behaving as though they are somehow "above" the law. So in the meantime while government sits on its hands, we must win these cases one at a time until we reach critical mass and the whole paradigm shifts.

History is not likely to treat Obama very well on the financial crisis. While giving him well deserved credit for stabilizing a hopelessly unstable situation, the lack of accountability and prosecutions in the financial sector is paving the way for virtually certain disaster. Since wrongdoers escalate when they get away with the last gambit, and we already know the banks are in the process of gaining control of natural resources (having already cornered the world's money supply) the largest threat to world peace now comes from the Banks.

Darlene Writes:
Many of loans were not actual loans. The were multiplied to justify elicit funds going through the system. Securities Mortgage fraud was originally intended to move a large amount of money undetected. For example they would take 10 accounts (mortgage accounts) and those would become shell mortgages in order to justify funds being moved. When they noticed this could actually be more lucrative and remove limits on "trading" it grew into a monster they were not able to control and were not able to confirm what was a real mortgage and what was a shell mortgage. This giving you Securities fraud as well as RICO violations and severe tax evasion.

Bundling was a way to give these so called Blackstone, AIG and many others a way to become " legal laundering systems". Since the Patriot act did not address trust and escrow accounts for real estate this was the way to get under the radar with the "Banking Laws" and at the same time receiving insurance on non-existent accounts thus "Justifying pay outs" This is why the banks want to pay everyone off and keep things quiet. HSBC was not the only bank conducting bad behavior and financing terrorist and drug traffickers. The same one's who conducted this activity would sell their own mother to avoid criminal charges. Bank Of America is under the protection of the CIA d/t their part with Afghanistan, Iraq, Mexico and other "high risk operations".

You have only scratched the surface my friend. American citizens who suffered from the "Mortgage Crisis, Life insurance fraud and blatant theft from multiple pension trust theft are the victims but this was merely a front for a much larger scheme right under American noses. You can thank the Bush and Chaney family along with Sullivan family for what has taken place. The Banks can not prove chain of Custody because they can not tell what is real and what is not at this point and in order to cover up the larger scandal many of the documents were destroyed in 2009 when they realized Elizabeth Warren and President Barack Obama and the FFETF would not be bought. Yes believe it or not President Obama is not part of the "Good Old Boy system" and well Warren is a female who will not be bought out of principle.

The HSBC scandal has scared them back to reality and now they must do anything and everything they can to cover up the larger scandal of violating UN sanctions and disobeying banking laws. Honestly until certain CEO's have criminal charges pressed against them and subpoena the registry of deeds in multiple states the banking system will remain compromised and the leave the US at risk as well as other Countries. I have enjoyed many articles you have written but I believe you have not gone deep enough in order to shine a true light on the situation."

Talk about yet another sell out

Common sense says if you add this up right, it comes to 500- 600 dollars per mortgage . can you say.. screwed again?

 

Bank of America Announces Agreement with Freddie Mac on Mortgage Repurchase Claims

Mon December 2, 2013 7:30 AM  | about: BAC

   

NEWS PROVIDED BY:

Business Wire

Agreement Resolves All Outstanding and Potential Residential Mortgage Representation and Warranties Claims for Loans Sold to Freddie Mac Through the End of 2009
Payments Covered by Existing Reserves as of September 30, 2013
CHARLOTTE, N.C.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Bank of America (BAC) today announced an agreement with the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) to resolve all remaining representations and warranties claims for residential mortgage loans sold to Freddie Mac through the end of 2009.
Under terms of the agreement, Bank of America will pay Freddie Mac a total of $404 million (less credits of $13 million) to resolve all outstanding and potential mortgage repurchase and make-whole claims related to loans sold to Freddie Mac from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2009, and to compensate Freddie Mac for certain past losses and potential future losses relating to denials, rescissions and cancellations of mortgage insurance. The payments are fully covered by existing reserves as of September 30, 2013.
Previously, Bank of America announced an agreement with Freddie Mac to resolve all outstanding and potential representations and warranties claims related to whole loans sold by legacy Countrywide to Freddie Mac through 2008, and a pair of agreements with Fannie Mae that, taken together, resolved all outstanding and potential representations and warranties claims related to whole loans sold by legacy Countrywide and legacy Bank of America to Fannie Mae through 2008.
With this settlement, Bank of America has resolved all outstanding and potential representations and warranties claims on whole loans sold by legacy Bank of America and Countrywide (CFC) to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac through the dates outlined above, subject to certain exceptions which Bank of America does not believe are material.
Todays agreement does not cover loan servicing obligations, loans contained in private label securitizations or securities and disclosure claims.
Bank of America
Bank of America is one of the world's largest financial institutions, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-market businesses and large corporations with a full range of banking, investing, asset management and other financial and risk management products and services. We serve approximately 51 million consumer and small business relationships with approximately 5,200 retail banking offices and approximately 16,200 ATMs and award-winning online banking with 30 million active users and more than 14 million mobile users. Bank of America is among the world's leading wealth management companies and is a global leader in corporate and investment banking and trading across a broad range of asset classes, serving corporations, governments, institutions and individuals around the world. Bank of America offers industry-leading support to approximately 3 million small business owners through a suite of innovative, easy-to-use online products and services. The company serves clients through operations in more than 40 countries. Bank of America Corporation stock (NYSE: BAC) is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

What we do now , will change the course of history.

What we chose to do now, will be the depending factor on our children and grand-children's lives. Do we want to leave them at the mercy of the banking system with the military controlling our every move? This is what its coming to and we need to face it and stop it now or doom our children's futures .  I know that this is a hard fact to face, but its becoming reality, and we need to stop it. 

Its time we all put our heads together and take a real stand. Its WE the people who own the government, not the government who owns us, but we are allowing it, and we must end it before its to late. 

BANKS TURN TRUST INTO A COMMODITY: U.S. BANK PURCHASE FROM BANK OF AMERICA

by Neil Garfield

In a final insult to our financial system, our society and our government, the Banks have set new rules: they say that if you appoint a trustee of your trust, the trustee can sell its position to another trustee. It is a natural offshoot of the "successor by merger" strategy they started a couple of years ago. But this one goes a step further. It says that the Trustor and beneficiaries have no choice but to accept the new Trustee who bought its position for some consideration. This is an important challenge to our system.

U.S. BANK has filed documents in some of my cases where it states that it is the successor in interest to Bank of America BY PURCHASE OF THE POSITION OF TRUSTEE. BOFA is a alleged to be successor in interest by merger with LaSalle Bank (a merger that is doubtful because of the prior acquisition of CitiGroup, who reports that it acquired ABN AMRO, the shareholders of which own LaSalle Bank).

The Federal Reserve stated in its approval of the merger of LaSalle Bank and Bank of America that the merger with LaSalle is the same as a merger with ABN AMRO. CIRCULAR REASONING COMBINED WITH A SHELL GAME COMBINED AS A COVER FOR WHAT IS, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, A PONZI SCHEME. And that is why the banks are being sued by investors, insurers and guarantors for fraud --- an intentional act of misrepresentation designed to cause damage to those who reasonably rely on these misrepresentations and which does cause damage to them.

Ultimately banking depends upon trust and relationships based on trust. By commoditizing the job of a trustee, the entire system is undermined and will lead most certainly to chaos and collapse.

But the issue is much larger than that. Trust lies at the heart of our systems of finance, commerce and government. Ultimately people consent to be governed by these systems because they repose confidence in the outcome of transactions, public and private. Imagine that you hire a trusted agent to do something that will have an enormous impact on your life. This trustee, according to the banks, can sell their position of trust to another party.

Normally if your secretary or administrative assistant quits, you replace them with someone else you trust or someone else you with who you can build a trusted arrangement. Not so with the US bank purchase from Bank of America. Managers of Pensions who believed in their trustee for the trust that issued them the bonds (that turned out to be worthless) now have no confidence that employee, agent or servant won't sell their job to someone else whom you don't know or don't trust. Trust commodities cannot and should not be allowed by a clueless government and an apathetic public.

The "Bill of sale" essentially provides that for dozens of "trusts" Bank of America will be replaced with the looming bank in control, U.S. Bank. Clearly Bank of America is expecting a heavy legal hit with its failure to protect the beneficiaries of the trusts --- the investor lenders. But the agreement is more pernicious than that. If you have a problem with what happened with the funding of the trust, the distributions, or the acquisition of loans, you can go to Bank of America, during whose tenure many illegal and fraudulent acts occurred. Bu they will refer you to U.S. Bank who "now handles" those trusts. And if you go to U.S. Bank to complain, they will tell you that they are new to the trust and that your complaint relates to BofA actions as trustee for the asset backed trust. But it doesn't stop there either. Each one is agreeing to indemnify in each other in a manner than will spin the complainant around until they dizzy with the subterfuge.

Creating a salable commodity out of a trust relationship cuts to the core of confidence in the marketplace. People no longer know the identities of the parties responsible for what the investor lenders placed in trust --- money that was supposed to bed deposited to the trust account managed by the trustee. Whether they like it not, the banks are shuffling the cards once again. They are testing us, our government and our marketplace --- a marketplace where certainty is now eliminated. Between off balance sheet, off record transaction, and now the ability to add, replace or subtract parties with whom you were willing to do business, with parties whom you are unwilling to do business, they have created a Middle East bizarre where everything changes by the minute. Consumers, pensioners, government guarantors, insurance companies are all filing suits that may fail because thes ame hairsplitting legal analysis that is rejected for borrowers is accepted for banks.

Action is needed now. This "sale" of the duties and obligations of the trustee must not and must never be permitted. The unintended or perhaps intended consequence is chaos in the marketplace where the United States won't even be allowed a seat at the table, except as the military policeman of the world.