Are Servicer Advances Deductible Expenses for Homeowners?

by Neil Garfield

Many homeowners get tax statements from entities claiming the right to file them, with an EIN that is problematic. We are having trouble linking the EIN with the name of the entity that sends the tax statement. More importantly or perhaps of equal importance is the question raised by individual homeowners and investors who have purchased multiple residential units and operate them as a business, renting them out as landlords.

Despite my degree and experience in taxation, my knowledge is out of date on this subject. Nobody should take any action based upon this article without consulting a qualified tax professional. This article is for information purposes only. However, I pose the issue for those who do know, to comment on the following scenarios:

First in the homeowner who owns his single family residence but who has stopped paying the monthly amount demanded by the Servicer. In those cases where there are Servicer or similar advances, the creditor keeps getting paid the interest due under the bond agreement even though the Servicer is not receiving the interest allegedly due from the alleged borrower under the alleged note. The interesting issue here is whether the homeowner still owes the money to the creditor under the original note and mortgage agreement. As I have previously outlined in recent days the answer is no, the homeowner does not owe that money to the creditor claiming rights under the original borrower loan agreement. That would seem to be a gain. But the party who made such payments appears to have a new claim against the homeowner for contribution or unjust enrichment even though THAT claim is not secured. Thus, it is asserted, the payments were made on behalf of the homeowner in exchange for a claim to recoup the amounts advanced. Hence the conclusion that since the payments were made, the homeowner may deduct the Servicer advances from his income before paying taxes.

Second is the company or person that bought multiple properties and created a business out of them. The same logic applies. They didn't make payments to the Servicer but the payments of interest were obviously received by the trust beneficiaries like the scenario above. And like the homeowner they are subject to a claim to recoup the money advanced on their behalf producing a new debt, like the above, that is unsecured. That being the case, they ought to be able to deduct the Servicer advances as business expense deductions from the business (rental) income.

If the entities in the alleged securitization chain or cloud oppose this and want the deduction themselves, then they must pick up the other end of the stick --- I.e, that the payments they made as Servicer advances are not collectible from the borrower. Hence all such payments would reduce the original debt due the creditor and would not create a new debt due to the party who funded the Servicer advances. That party might be the Servicer as the name implies or it might be actually paid by the broker dealer who sold the mortgage bonds. Either way the creditor would appear to have received the interest income it was expecting under its deal, as presented by the broker dealer. Hence the trust beneficiary would be getting a statement from SOMEBODY stating that they had received the income for tax reporting purposes.

An interesting litigation question is whether the creditors did receive such statements from one of the securitization parties, and whether it can be discovered which party sent the statement and what EIN they used. An interesting tax and discovery question is whether one of the securitization parties took the deduction after paying the creditor and must now have that deduction disallowed --- especially if the Servicer advances were taken out of a pool of money supplied by the creditor, which is most probably the case. It seems unlikely that the Servicer would actually be making such advances in such large volumes (where would they get the money?) and it seems equally unlikely that any other party would be digging into their own pockets to make a payment for which they get a dubious claim against a defaulting homeowner.

US Bank.. well I called this one awhile back :(

US Bank is popping up all over the place as the Plaintiff in judicial actions and the initiator of foreclosures in non- judicial states. It is one of the leading parties in the shell game that is mistaken for securitization of loans. But on its own website it admits against the interests that it has advanced in courts across the country, that it has NO POWER TO FORECLOSE or to pursue any other remedies.

US Bank pops up as the foreclosing party as trustee for some supposedly securitized asset pool masquerading as a REMIC trust ( which we all know now was breached in virtually every way, which is why the IRS granted a one year amnesty for the trusts to get their acts together --- an action of dubious legality).

Both US Bank and the the Pooling and Servicing Agreement will usually state flat out that the servicer makes all decisions and takes all actions relating to the borrower and the borrower's payments. There are several reasons for this one of which is the obvious conflict that could occur if the the servicer and the trustee were both bringing foreclosure actions.

But the other reason, the hidden one, is that the banks want to keep the court's attention on the borrower's contract and keep it away from the lender's contract which is quite different than the borrower's contract. And THAT will invite inquiry as to how or even if the two contracts are related or connected such that the mortgage encumbrance gives rights to the trust beneficiaries such that the collection and foreclosure efforts will inure to the benefit of the trust beneficiaries in the REMIC trust.

So why is US Bank violating both the content and intent of the PSA and its own website? In my own law firm I have two entirely different foreclosure cases --- one in which US Bank is the foreclosing party and the other where the servicer started the foreclosure action. Both loans are claimed to be in the same trust although one is in California and the other is in Florida. Why would Chase bank as servicer started an action? Even worse, why did Chase bank start the action as though it was the creditor and claim that there was no securitization?

I am not sure about the answers to these questions but I have some conjectures.

In the Florida case, US Bank is bringing the case because the servicer can't --- it knows and its records show non-stop servicer advances to the trust beneficiaries of the REMIC trust that supposedly was funded and who purchased or originated the loans in the trust. In the California case, even though the servicer advances are still present it is non-judicial so it is easier for Chase to slip by without even pausing because unless the homeowner brings a legal action to stop the foreclosure sale it just happens. And then it is over. But Chase is treading on thin ice here which is why it is now transferring the servicing rights ---- and therefore the rights to litigate --- to SPS who did not make the servicer advances.

Both Chase and US Bank are going into bankruptcy courts in Chapter 11 proceedings and demanding adequate protection payments while the bankruptcy is proceeding, knowing and withholding the fact that the creditor is being paid every month and there is no default from the creditor's point of view. This would be important information for the debtor in possession and the his attorney and the Judge to know. But it is withheld in the hope that the borrower/debtor will never discover the truth --- and in most cases they don't, unless they get a loan level account report based upon a solid securitization report which is based upon a good title report.

Both US Bank and Chase are wiling to endure awards of sanctions for misleading the court as a cost of doing business because the volume of complaints about their illegal and fraudulent activities is nearly zero when compared with the total of all state court, federal court and bankruptcy actions. But now they are treading on even thinner ice --- they are seeking to get turnover of rents with people who own multiple properties. Their arrogance apparently overcame their judgment. The owners of multiple properties frequently have substantial resources to litigate against the US Bank and Chase and now SPS. The truth is coming out in those cases.

Other Banks who say they are trustees simply direct the borrower or other inquirers to the servicer. But where US Bank is involved it is seeking profit at the expense of the trust beneficiaries and the owners of the real property involved. It seems to me that US Bank has gotten too cute by half and is now exposed to multiple actions for fraud. And I question whether the current revelations about US Bank BUYING the position of trustee has any legal support. I don't think it does --- not in the PSA, not in the statutes nor under common law.

Chase Wamu Merger - Who really owns the loans?

Crowd Sourcing on the Chase-WAMU Merger and the Owner of the Loans

by Neil Garfield

LivingLies is crowd-sourcing this one. Send your transcripts, articles, letters to neilfgarfield@hotmail.com. We want to know what you have about the Chase WAMU merger and what effect your information has on the ownership of loans that were originated or acquired by WAMU. Remember there were multiple parties involved in this ---

1. Washington Mutual and subsidiaries, some of which still exist independently,
2. the ex-OTS (office of thrift supervision),
3. the FDIC receiver Richard Schoppe,
4. the US Trustee in WAMU bankruptcy,
5. Washington Mutual itself apart from the estate created and kept by the receiver and
6. Washington Mutual itself apart from the estate created and kept by the U.S. Bankruptcy trustee, and of course
7. Chase Bank whose merger document (on the FDIC website) with WAMU excludes loans and states that the consideration was zero for the merger.

Information about any of these and any cases in which the ownership of loans was at issue would be greatly appreciated. We will publish the list of resources as it grows.

You need to ask the right questions

22729

by Neil Garfield

In thinking about how to present the issues in cases where the loans are part of a securitization process, whether successful or unsuccessful, I realized that one of the things that I failed to do was bring the attention of the court to the the cornerstone of the transaction --- the loan closing, rather than the the actual chronological first step which is the selling forward of empty mortgage bonds to investors. I realized that if I was sitting on the bench and the matter before me was the foreclosure of a mortgage that was facially correct and recorded in the county records, any argument that starts with securitization is going to seem like side-stepping the real issues. So I am working on going outside the chronological order of reality and starting with the middle point, which is the loan contract and loan closing.

Every contract must have an offer, acceptance and consideration. Every first year law student knows that. In the case of mortgage loans, the loan contract consists of

OFFER: I OFFER TO LOAN YOU MONEY PROVIDED YOU REPAY ME ON THE TERMS SET FORTH ON THE NOTE.

ACCEPTANCE: YOU ACCEPT THE OFFER AND SIGN THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE

CONSIDERATION: I GIVE YOU THE MONEY

The problem is that the above scenario is not the usual scenario with 96% of all mortgages between 2001-2009. If I don't give you the money, there is no contract and even though you signed the note, I have no right to record the mortgage because I never loaned you the money. You were fooled by the fact that money appeared at the closing table just as I said. But the money wasn't my money and I didn't lend it to you. But you signed the note and mortgage to me. What I have just done is probably fraudulent and certainly a table funded loan in violation of the Federal Truth in Lending Act. When the Judge says "did you sign the note?", he is only asking half the required questions. The other half should be asked of the forecloser "did the payee on the note make the loan?" The answer in most cases is no, and in all cases as to the assignment of the loan, no value was paid by the assignee for the transfer to the assignee. The loan should either have been originated with the name of the actual source of funds on the note and mortgage or the assignment should have been recorded in the name of the trust when the loan was acquired. But then the wholesale rejection of common underwriting standards would have been exposed and most of the loans would never have been made.

The reason why Judges and lawyers are missing the mark in many cases is that the loan contract is not the one they are thinking about. In the great majority of loan contracts the actual source of funds is NOT the party who is named as Payee or mortgagee. The actual party who made the loan is either the group of Trust beneficiaries or the actual REMIC trust where the trust was funded. The loan contract is implied by law and undocumented. And the terms are not necessarily what was stated in the note and mortgage. The lenders agreed to a loan with different terms than the terms set forth in the note and mortgage.

The contract for loan that everyone has their eye on is written but never completed. The originator offers a loan provided that the borrower agrees to the terms presented and executes the loan closing papers. In plain language the originator is saying "I agree to loan you money provided you agree to the terms of repayment and you execute the loan closing documents." You agree and execute the loan closing documents but then the originator who made the offer does not make the loan. The result by any interpretation is that there is no enforceable contract. In fact, there is an implied duty to return the documents to the borrower marked canceled.

The originator has no documentation showing that it was acting as agent for the trust beneficiaries or the trust. Even if such documentation existed, it would have required that the originator act as agent for the Trust or the trust beneficiaries without disclosure to the borrower. Such a provision requiring non disclosure would violate Federal law (TILA) and would therefore be void.

But the money appears at the closing table anyway, unknown to the borrower, from the trust beneficiaries who thought their money would first be used to fund the REMIC trust where they would get certain tax benefits. The receipt of the money by the borrower creates an obligation to repay implied by law --- the assumption being that it wasn't a gift.

Thus when the Judge asks "Did you sign the note and mortgage" he or she is only asking half of the essential questions. The other half should be directed to the foreclosing party "did you make the loan"?

The forecloser would then be forced to explain why they should collect on a debt that was created outside of their cloud of parties and entities. This is why they don't allege they are the holder in due course because THAT would require them to prove they have the note and mortgage "for value" and that they didn't have actual knowledge of the borrowers claims and defenses. The borrower would only need to deny such an allegation thus forcing the burden of proof onto the forecloser --- a burden that no forecloser these days can meet unless it is a local bank loan.

Instead of alleging that the Forecloser is a holder in due course, they carefully allege that they are the holder with implied rights to enforce because the documents appear to be valid on their face. But a holder is subject to the defenses available in any breach of contract action including non-performance --- I.e. The denial that the originator ever made the loan. Then they stonewall discovery on questions about the wire transfer receipt that would reveal who made the loan. At trial the borrower should have objections and motions in limine after properly seeking to enforce discovery and getting no results except more objections.

If the homeowner raises the issue of payment of the loan from the originator they are properly challenging the existence of a valid contract, which was never formed because of the failure of performance by the originator. Most loans during the mortgage meltdown period fit this scenario.

The end result should be that the debt cannot be enforced by the foreclosing party because no entity in their "securitization" cloud ever performed the essential act required by the loan contract --- performing the act of delivering money as a loan to the homeowner. Hence no debt was created between THOSE parties.

Non stop servicer advances are payments to the creditors --- the trust beneficiaries (investors) --- of the trust whether or not the borrower is paying the required payments under the note.

This could also  be grounds for challenging the default saying that there was no default from the creditor's perspective because they continued to receive their expected payments. Or it could be grounds for saying they waived the default or that the default was cured while they were accepting the servicer advances. The creditor is only allowed to be paid once on your loan.

Assuming the court accepts that argument, you have established that there are not one, but two loan contracts --- the one that the lender saw, and the one that the borrower saw. That would mean there was by definition no meeting of the minds, which is a basic term used in contract law. If the money from investors actually funded the trust, then they could argue that there was nothing wrong with the two contracts because the borrower's loan contract was with the trust. But our retort would be that if the borrower's contract was with the trust, why were they not on the note?

These are Razor thin distinctions that must be carefully argued or presented by an expert. The goal would be to discredit the initial loan transaction such that the loan was not secured because the real contract was an implied contract at law rather than the written one you signed. If the written one is void, then the debt exists, but it is not secured by a mortgage, hence there could be no foreclosure.

Collection could only be by the trust in a judicial case brought against you that could be discharged in bankruptcy. I don't know how the homestead exemptions work in California bankruptcy court, so we would need to be careful about how this would be used. In any event, amounts received from insurance contracts and the like would be deducted along with offset for appraisal fraud --- but realize that appraisal fraud can only go so far. You must prove what the real value of the home was (not presume or guess at it) at the time of the  loan transaction, which could be the modification or refi which would be when the real value had already plummeted while the loan amount was higher. The difference between the appraised value and the real value could be the an element of consequential damages, and if you can prove malevolent intent you could ask for punitive damages.

While I have been writing about these things for years it is only now that some judges are beginning to loosen up to listen to the realities of securitization --- that it was a fraudulent scheme to deprive investors of their money and the promised secured enforceable loans. The investors all sued saying the loans were NOT enforceable even though they had supposedly been transferred into the trust. These are the lawsuits that the banks are settling every week or every other week for hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. The largest so far is Chase who just paid $13 Billion to settle claims of fraud, misrepresentation, and mismanagement of funds.

I love Neil Garfield

 I love Neil Garfield! Why you ask? He is the only one who has stood up and told the truth. I have read many articles, but I alway look for his daily. Thank you Mr. Garfield for caring about so many of us ..

 

JP Morgan to Pay Another $2Billion for Madoff Conspiracy

by Neil Garfield

When the news of Madoff first made it into the media from which we think we get the information on what is happening in the world, I had two thoughts --- both related to my own experience on Wall Street. The first thing was that at $60 Billion it was impossible for all the big bankers (see Simon Johnson's Thirteen Bankers book --- a smart read) and traders to have been ignorant of what he was doing; the corollary to that is they said nothing, knowing that Madoff was saying he was the smartest trader in the world. None of the broker dealers had ever done a trade with him. So they new it was a PONZI Scheme. And he went to jail and other unpleasant things happened to his family.

The second thing that came to mind was the question of was why none of the big bankers were reporting him. Normally, the self policing code periodically cast a fraudster under the bus to achieve popularity with the public and regulators. Here, they were feeding a monster that was literally robbing widows and orphans over decades. And the reason why they were feeding Madoff's scheme with new suckers investing in Madoff's nonexistent investment trading portfolio --- and the reason it finally leaked out --- was that it was timed perfectly with the mortgage Ponzi scheme. It was the perfect distraction from what the Thirteen Bankers were doing. They threw him under the bus at precisely the time that their own peccadillo's were about to hit the fan (sorry to mix metaphors).

The Madoff scandal was called the largest financial fraud in the history of the world. But sitting right next to it was the largest white elephant ever conceived in the imagination of the public or even fiction writers. Madoff had taken $60 billion whilst the Bankers were making off with a minimum of $13 Trillion. Do the math. The Bankers sucked out of our economy a minimum of 10,000 times what Madoff had taken and they had retained a minimum of 2,000 times what Madoff had taken. If you like Math that equates by division to Madoff's "largest ever financial fraud" being 0.02% of what the bankers had taken also by fraud but using more sophisticated systems and layers of trail and entities so it made it more difficult to prosecute the banks than Madoff which was really very easy.

But the Wall Street bankers had another card up their sleeve. They had created a shadow banking system that was twenty times the total amount of fiat money issued by all countries of the world. They used these "nominal" values to scare the shit out of central bankers and finance ministers and convinced everyone that no matter how evil their motives and actions, they were too big to fail because if the government took them down, the entire financial system would collapse. That was a lie, and the recipients of that message suspected it was a lie but none of them knew enough to be sure. So they chickened out.

The result was that millions upon million of families lost all of their wealth or most of it, all of their credit reputation or most of it, and so far some 15 million people have been displaced, thrown out of good paying productive jobs and are forever taking the cost of this theft on their own backs and that of their generations to come.

On the ground level this translated as a double standard. While there is widespread acceptance of the fraudulent mortgages, notes, debts, bets, insurance and ratings, their is no acceptance of homeowners as the real victims who are paying most of the cost of this theft whether they are in foreclosure or not. In fact even if the citizens are renting or just looking for a job or trying to finance an education that will make them into marketable labor commodities they are paying through lower paying jobs, dependence upon unemployment benefits, Medicaid and other services that are costing all taxpayers trillions of dollars in what would otherwise by GDP.

And if that isn't enough the Federal Reserve is propping up these bankers with false balance sheets and false reserves with purchases of bonds that were never worth a penny because the asset pool never received funding and never owned a single loan. This is a cover up for more quantitative easing which is the printing of more money which in turn demeans the value of our currency and eventually will result in wholesale changes in world currency and cost of goods and services.

Some lawyer today at court said I know who you are--- you're the guy who hates banks. No. I have sat on the boards of banks and represented banks In Foreclosures both residential and commercial. I have filed hundreds of foreclosure actions for condominium, cooperative and homeowner associations. There are over 7,000 banks and credit unions in this country alone. I only dislike about 15 of them which means I like about 6,985 of these institutions who perform valuable services for a vibrant economy. I don't even dislike securitization. I just don't like when securitization documents are used to cover up a financial fraud. Is that wrong?

I call it fraud too !!

Ahh, Black rock.. them good ole boys at Deutsche Bank .. more fraud and yet, they are still allowed to keep it going in our country. 

 

More Lawsuits, Still No Real Progress and No Coverage by Media

by Neil Garfield

Jon Stewart committed his entire show to the mortgage crisis last Wednesday night. Go watch it. It wasn't funny although they added some comedic aspects. The bottom line is the question "why aren't these people in jail?" And the media was scorched with the fact that despite a constant culture of continuing corruption and absurd "transactions" in which paper goes back and forth, and calling that economic activity with"profit," and stories of the human tragedy of Foreclosures all based on what are now obviously fraudulent schemes, the media is silent. The number of stories on the illegal Foreclosures, the charges of FRAUD by everyone involved from lenders (investors) to insurers to guarantors to borrowers, the verdicts and judgments decided against the banks, and the analysis that the assets of the banks are fictional, the total is ZERO.

My question is why the displacement of more than 15 million people in a single scheme is not the main question in American discourse, media and politics --- especially since the banks have admitted by conduct or expressly their wrongdoing? We already know it was a total fraudulent scheme. The banks are settling their ill gotten gains for pennies on the he dollar while the victims absorb most of the loss. We already know that the requirements of Federal law were routinely ignored in disclosing the real terms and lenders to borrowers. And if they had made the disclosure, the deals would not have occurred, because if they were disclosed neither the lenders (investors) nor the borrowers (homeowners) would have done the deal.

One particular story was singled out by Jon Stewart to provide an example of what Gretchen Morgenson called "just another day on Wall Street" was the recent transaction between Blackrock and Corere. Blackrock loaned Corere $100 million. Blackrock purchased a credit default swap worth $15 million if there was any default for any reason. Blackrock made a deal with Corere for Corere to default. Blackrock collected the $15 million on the credit default swap PLUS the full repayment from Corere of $100 million. Somehow this is considered legal. I call it FRAUD.

When applied to the mortgage market you can easily see how the agent banks (investment banks or broker dealers) made a fortune by creating deals that failed on paper when in fact the loan was already covered in multiple ways. Only in the mortgage situation the lenders got screwed out of repayment and the borrowers got screwed on their deal by either losing their home or getting a deal where they would be underwater for the rest of their lives. As I have been detailing over the last week, I have a currently pending case in which the "successor" trustee with a new aggressive law firm is pursuing foreclosure and collection of rents on loans that they know have been paid, they admit have been paid, but they say it doesn't matter. Using this theory, if the payment doesn't come from the named Payor on the note to the now unnamed payee on exhibit note, anyone can collect multiple times on a single debt. This is crazy.

The bastion of our security --- judiciary --- is succumbing to expediency over truth and justice. Instead of applying the requirements of law and procedure strictly against the same entities that are repeatedly cited for FRAUD AND NON COMPLIANCE by government and lawsuits from investors, insurers and guarantors, the judiciary is ignoring the requirements or applying liberal standards to allow the foreclosure to proceed. What Judges don't understand yet is that they can clear their docket more quickly if they demand proof of payment by the party seeking foreclosure and proof of authority to represent the real creditors, who must be identified.

If the party pursuing foreclosure has no skin in the game and doesn't represent anyone who does, the foreclosure fails jurisdictionally. If we apply any other standard, then the courts are opening the door for uninjured people to sue for a slip and fall that happened to someone else.

These Foreclosures would disappear entirely if judges applied the law with or without a proper presentation by defense counsel. In the old days, Judges carefully reviewed the basic documents. If they found a gap, they refused to apply the most extreme remedy of foreclosure until the the creditor could comply. That is all I ask. Instead most lawyers are told to stop arguing because the Judge is uncomfortable with what he is hearing and most lawyers do not have the guts to say to the judge that the purpose of having a lawyer is to "argue" cases. Is the Judge throwing out the right to be heard altogether? That violation of undue process is something that should be taken to task.

At the end of the day, it will be accepted fact that the mortgages were fraudulent unenforceable devices that never should have been recorded, much less used for foreclosure or collection of rents, the note is a fraudulent unenforceable paper designed to mislead the borrower, the lenders, the insurers, the government guarantors, credit default counterparties, and the courts as to the lender's identity, and the debt was always between the investors who received no documentation for their investment that was real, and the homeowners who were duped into signing papers that made them unwitting participants in a fraudulent scheme.

In the end the intermediary agent banks got paid but the lenders only get their money if they sue the investment banker because the lenders were denied the right to appear on closing paperwork as the lender or on assignments. In other words, the parties who loaned the money got pennies on the dollar. The Banks got paid multiple times on the same debt by selling it multiple times, insuring it multiple times and getting it guaranteed multiple times, and then foreclosing as if they were the lender.

My final question is this: "if we know the mortgage mess was a fraudulent scheme, why are we allowing its continuation in the courts?"

DOJ plans more MBS fraud cases in New Year

The Department of Justice intends to bring cases against several financial institutions next year for what it says is mortgage-bond fraud, Attorney General Eric Holder told Reuters yesterday.
While Holder said that the DOJ would use JPMorgan's $13B agreement as a template, he didn't provide details about which banks are in his crosshairs.
Firms that have acknowledged that they are under investigation include Bank of America (BAC), Citigroup (C) and Goldman Sachs (GS).

Darline Spencer hit the bulls-eye once again

Darline Spencer hit the bulls-eye once again. Here she talks about how one loan was multiplied into many loans all of which were sold to investors, but resulted in accounting anomalies that had to be covered up. Here is what she says:

Confusing but it appears as I have claimed initially. They took a real Mortgage and ballooned it into 10 mortgages and used them to move elicit funds thus when you research the accounting part of it you find trustees and investors have been paid even if borrowers paid or not paid their mortgage. Once the investment banks discover their error on tracking the difference and discovered the originating loans were hanging in the wind and ultimately the FDIC would be enquiring and auditing they had two choices. Send out satisfactory of loans or foreclose.

Multiple individuals I have met with received a satisfactory of loan when in fact they had not paid off their loan and were trying to re-finance. Ironically it made it through the courts and since the satisfactory of loan was sent to the borrower it stands. LOL It is like winning the lottery when you get a line of credit or a mortgage letter stating satisfactory of a debt and you did not pay it off! I had the please of meeting a lady that was in tears on the phone with her lawyer after receiving such a notice. Not understanding the notice she happened to ask me what it meant. I reviewed it and explained to her it is a court order satisfactory of loan from Bank of America in North Carolina. Trust me the banks are truly covering up their fraud if they are paying off loans just to destroy a paper trail. IRONIC isn't it! I can tell you this she will not be calling the bank complaining! P.s. This has also occurred on lines of credit borrowed against mortgages and they have also miss-used reverse mortgages. They truly were focused on profits and moving elicit funds that they forgot to take care of the base (Chain of Custody) failed GOTCHA GOTCHA with your hand in the cookie jar!

CHASE WROTE OFF MY SECOND MORTGAGE NOTE FROM LONG BEACH AS

Satisfactions of Mortgage. JUST PRIOR TO SAYING THEY OWNED BOTH MY NOTES AND THAN SELLING THE FIRST IN A SHADY DEAL BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TO ARCHBAY AND THAN TELLING ME A YEAR LATER .. SORRY WE NEVER OWNED THE FIRST BUT HERE  WE WILL SATISFY THE SECOND AND GIVE IT TO YOU FREE, WHEN IN FACT IT WAS A DEAL MADE WITH ARCHBAY TO FORECLOSE , WHEN THEY NEVER HAD THE PAPERWORK IN THE FIRST PLACE FROM DEUTSCHE BANK, OH AND THE VT JUDGE ALLOWED THIS TOO.