In Texas we have noticed foreclosures in the name of MERS have suddenly become VERY rare.  We haven’t run across one in several months.

Does this mean MERS has vanished? 

Nope, but the mortgage servicers are downplaying the role of MERS and trying to shield MERS and themselves from the bright light.

This means you need to dig a little deeper to uncover really what is going on behind the curtain.

The article below from Reuters highlights MERS’ recent announcement to its members and 20,000+ “officers” that they need to leave out MERS’ name in foreclosure proceedings.

If you or someone you know is facing a mortgage hardship or foreclosure contact our office immediately.

- The Bank Slayer

Exclusive: Facing criticism, MERS cuts role in foreclosures

(Reuters) – MERS, the electronic mortgage registry that faces multiple investigations for its role in thousands of problematic foreclosure cases, changed its rules to lower its profile in court-supervised foreclosures.

MERS, a unit of Merscorp Inc. of Reston, Virginia, owns the computerized registry, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. Mortgage loan giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and several of the largest U.S. banks established MERS in 1995 to circumvent the costly and cumbersome process of transferring ownership of mortgages and recording the changes with county clerks.

In rule changes announced to MERS members on July 21, the company forbade members to file any more foreclosure actions in MERS’s name.

It also required mortgage servicers to obtain mortgage assignments and record them with county clerks before beginning foreclosures.

Mortgage-loan servicers perform routine duties for the investment trusts that own pools of mortgages, including collecting mortgage payments and, when necessary, filing foreclosures.

Although these trusts are legally required to own the mortgages when they file to foreclose, the servicers in many cases did not obtain documents known as assignments on their behalf until weeks or months after launching a foreclosure action in court, a recent Reuters Special Report found. (link.reuters.com/kyb72s)

Since the collapse of the housing boom, many foreclosure cases were filed in MERS’s name, even though the registry doesn’t really own either the mortgage or the promissory note, the document which states the terms of the mortgage loan.

MERS’s role in foreclosure cases has made it a lightning rod in recent months in court decisions which have held that loan servicers’ use of the registry violates basic real estate and mortgage laws.

In the last week, state attorneys general in Massachusetts and Delaware have announced investigations of MERS, and several other states have broader inquiries into foreclosure practices that include MERS.

It is unclear how much the rule changes will help MERS with its legal problems.

Under the new rules, servicers are required to stop filing foreclosures in MERS’s name, but MERS’s role in foreclosures won’t actually be eliminated. The servicers will continue to obtain the needed mortgage assignments from MERS. In past cases examined by Reuters, such assignments have included ones of questionable legitimacy, such as mortgages owned by now-defunct lenders.

O. Max Gardner III, a North Carolina lawyer who is specialist in foreclosure actions in bankruptcy courts, said the change will have the effect of making MERS’s role in assigning mortgages invisible in court.

The assignments will still come from MERS, but “they just won’t be in the court files any more,” he said.

MERS spokeswoman Janice Smith said the new rules make mandatory a trend that already was under way.

She noted that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and several large banks already had stopped filing foreclosures in MERS name. Smith said the change would avoid confusing homeowners facing foreclosure by eliminating MERS, a company they had never heard of, from court documents.

She also said that MERS’ s original purpose was to keep track of changes in servicers and mortgage ownership. “Foreclosure really was not central to MERS’s core business,” she said, adding that MERS received no income from foreclosures.

Mortgage-law specialists say that lenders and servicers for a long time relied heavily on bringing foreclosures in MERS’s name. This helped make possible foreclosures that otherwise might not have taken place because the necessary original documents were missing.

MERS says that it is the holder of record of 32 million, or 60 per cent, of U.S. mortgages. But it has only a handful of employees. Instead, it has designated some 20,000 employees of banks and other servicers as MERS “officers.”

Some courts and homeowners’ lawyers have criticized this system because in effect it enables servicers to assign mortgages to themselves whenever they needed one to foreclose.

The rule change also comes amid a growing movement against MERS among county clerks around the U.S. They have been pressing state attorneys general and local prosecutors to investigate MERS for allegedly failing to record documents with them and pay the associated filing fees. The rule change, by requiring servicers to record mortgage assignments sooner and pay recording fees, will partly address the clerks’ concerns.

(Editing by Michael Williams)

SHOCKER!!   Buyer of a short sale doesn’t own the property he just purchased (or does he?).  Seller of the short sale paid off the wrong party (or did he?).

The below email was sent to Neil Garfield at Living Lies.  Sadly this is not shocking at we know of two other lawsuits where the seller and the buyer acted in good faith and sold the property and the money was sent to BofA (and MERS was involved as well) and later the “real” owner of the deed of trust came forward and demanded that the transaction be undone due to a mistaken release of the deed of trust by the wrong party.

What does this mean to a real estate agent involved in the transaction?

Get an attorney involved – preferably BEFORE the short sale closes.  Why?  Quite simply you need to make sure that the transaction is buttoned up tight.   Many of the short sales that involve an attorney and litigation against the pretender lender will require a settlement agreement to be signed at closing (or at least have enough documentation that the seller & buyer have some ground to stand on).

But what does a settlement agreement do and how does it help you as the real estate agent?

First, the pretender lender whose is receiving the proceeds of the short sale “swears” they are the real lender or working for the real lender (like Fannie Mae).  Second, a well crafted settlement agreement will indemnify the seller (or whichever parties are named) – meaning that the lender getting the money has to defend the seller if they are sued over the specifics related to the settlement, i.e. the short sale.

Does the buyer lose the house and does the real estate agent have to give back their commission?

Very likely the answer is no.  But you will have to hire an attorney to fight this battle for you.   The title company should be on the hook for the value of the home – meaning they will either have to pay off the “real” lender or the new homeowner.   The downside is that it could cost more than the commission just to fight this type of suit AND the title insurance is only good for the amount of the policy (if the house was bought for less than full value or thousands of dollars in updates/remodeling has been performed you could lose this amount).

Bottom Line

Short sales and even purchasing foreclosure can be great equity and value builders for the buyers and assist the seller with disposing of a property but a good title company and good lawyer can help you keep this value hopefully keep your sanity and commission.

Seek legal counsel from a real estate attorney and one who has experience in dealing with short sale and foreclosure.

- The Bank Slayer

Mortgage insurance adds another and potentially difficult step to closing out a short sale.

Why?  Quite simply it adds another approval needed in the short sale approval process.

When negotiating with the bank for a short sale it may appear that the assigned negotiator is the person that you are dealing with but only on the surface.  The reality is that there are several folks and possible several layers of approvals needed to approval a short sale.

Not only does the mortgage company (the Servicer of the loan) need to approve it but they need to make sure it is within the guidelines of the investor for whom they are servicing the loan.  For example, they may be processing the loan for Fannie Mae and within their guidelines.  Most times they still need to send the short sale to Fannie Mae for approval.  Now add in a mortgage insurance company as well.

Why is this a problem that one more approval must be sought?  Because the mortgage insurance company has to write a check!

When they have to write a check to cover a loss for the investor they want to scrutinize the deal.  Furthermore, they may want a payment from the seller.  Yes, a payment from the seller to help cover the loss.

Mortgage insurance doesn’t help the seller/borrower?

No, in fact the purpose of the mortgage insurance (for which the borrower pays) only serves to protect the banks.  When the seller/borrower defaults then mortgage insurance comes into play to help cover the loss for the lender.  This sounds good for the borrower, right?  Yes, it sounds like normal insurance that protects the purchaser of the insurance.

Unfortunately, this type of insurance you buy helps only the lender and in a default situation where the mortgage insurance company pays, they can turn around and seek payment from the borrower/seller.  Either a partial payment before or at closing or suing the defaulted borrower/seller later for the paid out funds.

If the home you are short selling has mortgage insurance, this needs to be addressed as early as possible in the sale cycle to insure a smooth approval process.

– The Bank Slayer

NAR is touting a new bill the “Prompt Decision for Qualification for Short Sale Act of 2011” which has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representative and will mandate that mortgage servicers respond to short sale requests within 45 days!

Sounds good but guess what? They already tried this once.  It was called Prompt Decision for Qualification for Short Sale Act of 201o. It never made it out of committee.

You think to yourself, “But hey, at least they are trying again.”   (You can track the progress of the 2011 attempt here:  http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1498 )

But the real problem is that the bill is virtually worthless.  Why?

First, it provides exceptions – meaning it doesn’t apply – for most mortgages.

Example #1 – It doesn’t apply to any loan that has been securitized. – READ: Fannie or Freddie Loans. This covers over 50% of all mortgages in the U.S.

…except as provided in subsection (b) and notwithstanding any other provision of law or of any contract, including a contract between a servicer of a residential mortgage loan and a securitization vehicle or other investment vehicle…

Example #2 – It doesn’t apply to any loan where the short sale process or review of that process (such as HAFA, HUD’s ATP, etc.) is already in the works.  Furthermore, the bank can claim that the “procedure” for handling a loan in default is already spelled out in a written agreement such as the deed of trust (which governs foreclosures as well).

…shall not apply with respect to any residential mortgage with respect to which the mortgagor and the mortgagee or servicer have entered into a written agreement before the date of the enactment of the Prompt Decision for Qualification of Short Sale Act of 2011.

Second, the time limit of 45 days does little to help Texas homeowners.  Why? Because it won’t stop a foreclosure which takes only 21 days.

…may not be construed to preempt, annul, or otherwise affect any other provision of law or of any contract or program that provides a shorter period than is provided under subsection (a)…

Third, there are no real teeth or penalties if the mortgage servicer doesn’t abide by the 45 day period.

…any creditor who fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this part…any actual damage sustained by such person as a result of the failure OR not less than $400 or greater than $4,000.

Bottom line is this:

• It is unlikely this bill will ever make it out of committee and into law.
• It doesn’t apply to most mortgages.
• There are few if any remedies available to the homeowner.
• Unless you have MASSIVE equity in your home you are not going to be able to prove actual damages that are in excess of what is owed on the mortgage AND even if the homeowner is awarded the maximum damage of $4,000 it will likely be used to offset missed mortgages payments, taxes, insurance, and whatever else the bank tacks on.

Oh and by the way…the response within the 45 days could still very well be NO.

We still maintain that in most cases, direct and aggressive litigation against the bank is the best way to secure: short sale approval, maximum commission for the REALTOR, and debt forgiveness for the homeowner.

Use a local real estate lawyer in your area not just to threaten, but SUE THE BANK.

- The Bank Slayer

The letter below shows EXACTLY how the banks and their lawyers try to twist the facts and scare homeowners as well as consumer advocates into accepting their lies.   The blogs referenced in this response letter are credible and valuable in the foreclosure defense arena.

Statements like: “A paralegal at the now defunct law firm of David Sterns gave a deposition to the Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum’s Office indicating that virtually every affidavit, assignment, or other sworn document coming out of the firm was faked.” show that once the rocks are overturned the light is shown on the fraud happening in the foreclosure mills.

Read and enjoy.  EXCELLENT REPONSE!

- The Bank Slayer

posted at http://4closurefraud.org/author/4closurefraud/

SAVE MY HOME LAW GROUP
3601 WEST COMMERCIAL BLVD., SUITE 16
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33309
TEL:  954-677-8888; FAX: 954-677-8881
CAROL C ASBURY, SENIOR ATTORNEY

March 30, 2011

Michael B. Colgan
GLENN RASMUSSEN FOGARTY & HOOKER
100 South Ashley Drive
Suite 1300
Tampa, Florida 33607

RE:  Cease and Desist Demand Letter to Lisa Epstein dated March 14, 2011

Dear Attorney Colgan:

Please be advised that this Law Firm has been retained to represent Lisa Epstein regarding your Cease and Desist Letter to Lisa Epstein dated March 14, 2011 seeking to silence Lisa Epstein regarding matters of great public interest in order to discourage debate on these important issues of public concern directly impacting and complicating the foreclosure crisis in Florida.

My first concern with regard to your letter is that you state that your Office is counsel to Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc. (“NTC”) but your Office seems to be seeking redress concerning individuals who are employees of NTC but who are not represented by your law firm.  For instance, the first example involving Crystal Moore does not even mention your client, NTC, yet your Office insist that Lisa Epstein remove this very old posting (September 20, 2010) directing her attention to an Order by Sarasota Circuit Judge Rick DeFuria enjoining Christopher Forrest and The Forrest Law Firm, implying that the Judge’s Temporary Injunction somehow applies to her and her blog, www.foreclosurehamlet.org Not only is the Judge’s Order not directed at her or her blog, www.foreclosurehamlet.org but you failed to inform her that on or about December 10, 2010 that Order was appealed by the ACLU, who is representing Christopher Forrest and The Forrest Law Firm, to the Second District Court, which places its viability in question.

I would note that these videotaped depositions can be found in a number of places on the internet including some State Governmental sites.  Furthermore, posting a third party article directing people to a YouTube site is not defamation nor can it be considered “posting, publishing, disseminating, or maintaining materials” related to those depositions.  All of which is done on YouTube.

In fact, in a letter to the Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Canady, Howard Simon, ACLU of Florida, Executive Direct said, “Putting the videotaped depositions of ‘Robosigners’ on YouTube give the world an opportunity to see how the practices of Banks and Title Companies are affecting homeowners facing financial problems.  This is a public service that shouldn’t be subject to a court imposed gag order.”  This Letter was co-signed by the Florida Association of Broadcasters, Florida Society of News Editors, Florida Press Association, Florida Times-Union Newspaper, and the First Amendment Foundation.  More information can be found at a site that my Office sponsors, www.4closurefraud.org, authored by Michael Redman.

Example two in your letter is an objection to Attorney Lynn Szymoniak’s summary of Brian Bly’s deposition.  Now if summarizing the sworn testimony or statements of an individual is actionable then every newspaper and newsroom needs to be shut down immediately.  The public would instantly be cast into the dark ages – a time when a few powerful individuals attempted to control the people by keeping the masses in ignorance.  As with Example one, NTC is not even mentioned, with the exception that example two indicates that Brian Bly is employed by Nationwide Title Clearing.   However, your letter adds the additional information that, in your legal opinion, it is not legally improper for NTC to direct Brian Bly to sign documents as an officer of over 20 banks although Mr. Bly has no knowledge of what he is signing or the contents of the assignments.   In other words, your letter admits that he just “robo signs” documents put in front of him because NTC directs him to do it.

Since your are being so open an honest, I will also be open and honest.  I have in my office sworn Affidavits – not assignments – signed by both Crystal Moore and Brian Bly.  Based on your candid statement, I can surmise that Crystal Moore and Brian Bly sign these affidavits without any knowledge of the contents because they are directed by NTC to sign these documents as an officer of over 20 banks.  Does your Law Firm find this policy regarding sworn Affidavits also legally permissible?

It may be your legal opinion that your clients do not need to read the documents that they sign but, in my legal opinion, I inform all my clients to read and understand everything that they sign; especially, if that document is going to be recorded in the county records and used in a court of law as evidence.  Moreover, if – as you state – “the signer is not required to read them before signing” – then how do you, as the attorney for NTC, know that Crystal Moore and Brian Bly only signed Assignments since “not reading” a document means, by definition, that neither of them knows what kind of document they signed – whether it be an Assignment, Lost Note Affidavit, Affidavit in Support of Summary Judgment, Satisfaction of Mortgage or any other document – because neither of them had any knowledge of the contents of the documents that they signed.  To use your phrase, “I am sure you know” that both Crystal Moore and Brian Bly signed sworn Affidavits of all kinds.

By Mr Bly’s own admission, he signed 5000 documents a day in batches of 200.  Assuming an 8 hour day, Mr. Bly  would have had to sign over 600 documents every hour or 10 documents every minute.  Mr. Bly accomplished this feat by not reading the documents, which prevents him from having any knowledge of the content of the document or what type of document he was signing.  I am sure he did not even care what he was signing as his job was signing – not reading, understanding, or knowing.   As pointed out in Example 3, the document signed is a Satisfaction of Mortgage – not an Assignment of Mortgage.  To sign a Satisfaction of Mortgage, Mr. Bly would have to have some knowledge of whether or not the mortgage was in fact paid off.  However, he was not reading the documents he signed, which, of course, begs the questions – Was the mortgage really satisfied?

Example 4, relates to Crystal Moore and Brian Bly signing Affidavits and Example 5 relates to a question posted by a reader of www.foreclosurehamlet.org regarding another employee of NTC, Mary Jo McGowan.   Although you state that these statements are false and materially misleading, you don’t explain your statement.  In my legal opinion, a person who signs an Affidavit swearing to facts set forth therein without any personal knowledge of those facts is making a false statement.  It is fraud on the Court to utilize such fraudulent affidavits as evidence in a court of law.  One law firm has, this very week, agreed to pay a paltry $2 Million in fines to Florida regarding the filing of such false affidavits and paper work.  I guess that the Attorney General’s Office in Florida is seeking to hold someone “accountable” for these “sworn false statements.”

Twice you make the rather amazing statement that my client “knows” that NTC has duly executed resolutions or power of attorney for the financial institutions for which its employees executed assignments.  Need I point out that my client does NOT “know” anything of the sort.  I have been practicing in this area of the law (Mortgage Defense Law) since early 2008 and I have never seen such a resolution or power of attorney.  So not even I know anything about “resolutions” or “power of attorneys” authorizing Mr. Bly, Ms. Moore, or anybody else to sign for any bank, lender or financial institution.  Since these resolutions you mention deal only with “assignments”, can I assume that there are not resolutions authorizing the signing of Affidavits, Satisfactions of Mortgages, or other sworn statements, which have been filed in courts throughout Florida?

Your statement that such confidential resolutions or power of attorneys exists secretly, hidden from view, is meaningless, pointless, and not trustworthy.  For example, you provide a copy of a three year old, November 20, 2008 “Unanimous Written Consent of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of Citi Residential Lending Inc.” which is neither “unanimous”, as it is signed by only two out of three people, nor does it authorize the signing of any and all assignments no matter what State or legal case the assignments relates.  Half the resolution seems to be missing. (See, Page 2).  Its not authenticated – but just a copy.  Its old.  I have no idea if Sanjiv Das and Paul R. Ince have really signed this alleged resolution or are authorized to sign this resolution.  The resolution “specifically” relates to something happening in Colorado, not Florida.  The resolution is not even valid until NTC executes an Indemnity Agreement.  Who knows if NTC executed this Indemnity Agreement.  Since this alleged resolution is no longer confidential, can I assume that your Law Office will be making all these “confidential” resolutions or power of attorneys available for discovery should your Client decide to sue my Client?

Again your letter states that these duly-executed corporate resolutions or powers of attorney allows the employees of NTC to execute assignments only. Again, can I assume that there are no secret, confidential resolutions or power of attorneys granting the employees of NTC the right to sign sworn affidavits, satisfactions of mortgages, or other sworn statements? If that is true, as you imply, then any Affidavit, Satisfaction of Mortgage, or sworn statements signed by Mr. Bly, Ms. Moore or other employees of NTC are, consequently, legally invalid.

Now let me tell you a little bit about Lisa Epstein and her blog, www.foreclosurehamlet.org.  The blog specifically states that it is for “Supporting, Informing, & Connecting People in Foreclosure.”  The blog posts every day the latest news in this very important public interest subject of foreclosure and foreclosure fraud.  This area is of such importance that the ACLU has become involved in Florida due to the blatant violations of Floridian’s constitutional due process rights.  The Florida Attorney General is actively investigating several law firms for filing false affidavits and false documents in the courts.  A paralegal at the now defunct law firm of David Sterns gave a deposition to the Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum’s Office indicating that virtually every affidavit, assignment, or other sworn document coming out of the firm was faked.  All these issues and many, many more are tracked on Lisa Epstein’s blog, www.foreclosurehamlet.org.

On a daily basis, Lisa Epstein’s blog provides its readers with up to date information and news regarding events surrounding Foreclosures; including, but not limited to changes in the court administrative rules and recent rulings from Judges throughout Florida.  The Blog receives over 3,000 hits every day from people seeking information on this vitally important area of public importance in Florida.  In short, www.foreclosurehamlet.org receives approximately 100,000 hits per month.  Every day the number of hits increase.

Lisa Epstein’s name is known even in Tallahassee.  Recently she was one of the leaders in the Rally to Tally where she traveled with two bus loads of fellow advocates to Tallahassee to protest the new attempts to cut short the due process rights of homeowners in Florida.  There in Tallahassee, she met with representatives of the Attorney General’s Office as well as members of the State Legislator regarding bills presently pending before the House of Representatives and State Senate.

Lisa Epstein has been named the Homeowners Advocate by the Palm Beach Post.  In December, 2010, Florida Trend named Lisa Epstein and Michael Redman the Florida News-makers of the Year for 2010.

Lisa Epstein and Michael Redman have assisted the Florida Attorney General’s Office in investigating and providing evidence of the the fraudulent documents that have been filed in the county records and in different courts throughout the States.  Both Lisa Epstein’s, www.foreclosurehamlet.org, and Michael Redman’s, www.4closurefraud.org, investigative journalism have been responsible for exposing how different signatures appear for the same robosigners, how the banks have filed two blue ink notes, and exposed all the different kinds of fraudulent affidavits, assignments of mortgages, and other fraudulent documents have been filed in the courts and in the county records.  Lisa Epstein and Michael Redman have investigated and reported on many issues that are now in the forefront of newspapers and the nightly news.  In addition, both web blogs are considered the two most important sites for seeking information in this most critical area for Floridians who are losing their homes and their finances.  Without a doubt, Lisa Epstein’s blog, www.foreclosurehamlet.org, concentrates on gathering, selecting, and preparing, for purposes of publication to a mass audience, information about current events of interest and concern to her audience  — specifically, “Supporting, Informing & Connecting People in Foreclosure.”

It is well settled law that Lisa Epstein is entitled to the protections provided by the First Amendment with respect to the freedom of free speech.  In addition to her investigative work, Lisa Epstein’s  republishes articles picked up from other new sources, blogs or internet news sites.  In the Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971), the federal government sought to enjoin The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing a stolen classified documents on United State decision-making policy in Vietnam.  The documents contained highly classified information that presumably threatened national security.  Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that even those threats to important governmental interests could not overcome the established presumption against prior restraint on speech.  It is a “hallowed First Amendment principle that the press shall not be subjected to prior restraints.”

Moreover, the activities of Brian Bly and Crystal Moore have made them infamous throughout the United States.  These two names are well-known.  Whether Brian Bly or Crystal Moore intended the notoriety, these two people – along with many others – have become famous and will be forever linked to the name “robosigner”.  Consequently, any defamation action will need to meet a higher standard to state a cause of action.

My client will not waive her First Amendment Rights which protect and guarantees the full and uninhibited discussion of the vitally important public issues surrounding foreclosure litigation in Florida; especially since there has been no statements that can be reasonably interpreted as stating false and defamatory facts about Mr. Bly or Crystal Moore or NTC reputations, which may warrant stifling the First Amendment rights to public debate.  The First Amendment guarantees a full and uninhibited discussion of public issues.  In the arena of public discussion, differing views may be voiced within the established limits of verbal discord or rhetorical hyperbole’, and even offensive utterance, without violating the law of defamation; especially, where such statements cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual’s reputation.   The public has a right to weigh all the facts in arriving at conclusions related to any individual who signs for companies he or she is not employed with or who swears to facts in affidavits where the individual admittedly has no personal knowledge.    Fifty States are now investigating these activities.  The Florida Bar has now stated that lawyers may loose their Florida Bar licenses over filing such false and fraudulent paper work in the courts.

To the extent that your Law Firm does not represent the individuals you seek redress for, my client declines to comply with your demand letter to abridge her Constitutional Right guaranteed under the First Amendment in favor of demands your Law Firm has no legal right to make.  With regard to NTC, you letter simply refers to “implications” you have drawn from statements your Law Firm have interpreted as being defamatory to the reputation of NTC.  My client declines to accept those interpretations; therefore, she will continue to exercise her Constitutional Rights of free speech.

As far as Matthew Weidner’s actions with regard to NTC’s law suit, he has chosen the higher ground and the better fight.  His energy is better served in the court room and not being drawn off into some legal battle that draws his attention away from the real battle.  On the other hand, my client, Lisa Epstein, is an advocate for the People of Florida and her arena is the public.  Her strengths are in her First Amendment rights as a journalist and an Advocate.  That is why your letter and this response will be posted on her Blog, www.foreclosurehamlet.org, as well as, www.4closurefraud.org.

Sincerely,

Carol C Asbury
Senior Attorney

Talk about a title NIGHTMARE.  As you will see below in a blurb from April Charney, a large national servicer (U.S. Mortgage) STOLE mortgages belonging to credit unions for which they were servicing the Notes.  ($142 million worth of loans!!!).

U.S. Mortgage sold the loans to Fannie Mae and kept all the money but kept sending the mortgage payments to the credit unions and Fannie Mae so no one ever knew.  Eventually after stealing the loans and selling to a very aggressive Fannie Mae as purchaser, the servicer went bankrupt.   The credit unions moved to service the loans themselves or transfer them to another servicer and found out the servicer had stolen their loans and sold them.

In the case below a specific credit union wants the loans back but Fannie already sold them into the securities market and/or doesn’t want to give them up AND wants the mortgage payments sent to them.

The credit union’s beef with Fannie is that Fannie audited U.S. Mortgage each year and blessed their internal processes but when buying the loan failed to always secure the original notes AND the property records only show the credit union’s deed of trust and NO ASSIGNMENT from the credit union to the servicer or anyone else.  Hence, the loan still belonged to the credit union.

Among some of the fascinating elements in the case is one in which employees at the servicer even produced fake promissory notes and signed blue ink pretending to be the borrower when on occasion Fannie actually asked for the original notes.

This is a good example of the lies and theft going on behind closed doors.

- The Bank Slayer

From: April Charney [April.Charney@jaxlegalaid.org]

SUFFOLK FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION
Defendant

Case 2:10-cv-02763-GEB

In 2009, “Suffolk learned that U.S. Mortgage ha[d] stolen 189 of the mortgage loans it was servicing (the “Stolen Mortgages”), worth more than $42 million2 and sold them to Fannie Mae.” (Id. at ¶ 7.) Suffolk states in its Complaint that “McGrath and another U.S. Mortgage employee, Ron Carti, had prepared and signed loan transfer documents that falsely identified themselves as executives of Suffolk” and that “Fannie Mae accepted the documents and paid U.S. Mortgage millions of dollars without ever checking into McGrath’s or Carti’s authority to execute loan transfer documents on behalf of Suffolk.” (Id. at ¶ 7.)

The theft of the Stolen Mortgages occurred throughout years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, during which time “U.S. Mortgage officers and employees . . . selected loans that Suffolk had instructed CU National to retain in Suffolk’s portfolio and . . . sold those loans to Fannie Mae without Suffolk’s knowledge or authorization.” (Id. at ¶ 39.) “U.S. Mortgage sold the Stolen Mortgages to Fannie Mae by having McGrath and Carti execute the documentation themselves” despite the fact that only authorized Suffolk employees had authority to sign these documents. (Id. at ¶ 41.) Neither McGrath nor Carti had the authority to execute these documents. (Id. at ¶¶ 71-77.)

In addition, U.S. Mortgage “concealed its actions from Suffolk . . . for years by continuing to make monthly payments on the stolen mortgages as if they remained in [Suffolk's] portfolio[].” (Id. at ¶ 9.) “McGrath has already pleaded guilty to crimes in connection with his unauthorized sales of the Stolen Mortgages and, in doing so, had admitted that he and Carti executed loan transfer documents purportedly on Suffolk’s behalf without Suffolk’s authorization.” (Id. at ¶ 48.)

McGrath also admitted that “he did not always deliver an authentic original note to Fannie Mae in his unauthorized sales” and that in some cases “he forged the name of the borrower on a newly created note” and in others “he had color copies of notes made and delivered a copy of the note to Fannie Mae.” (Id. at 51.)

(Paragraph 42 of the Complaint states that the Stolen Mortgages were worth more than $142 million. (Compl. ¶ 42; Doc. No. 1.))

MERS is the bane of homeowners who simply want to know who really owns their loan and who might really have their Promissory Note.

The article below from the The New York Times highlights the flaws and misconduct that is going on behind the scenes and helps explain (in part) why you can’t easily determine who owns your mortgage.

For example,

MERS’ board gave its senior vice president, William Hultman, the rather extraordinary power to deputize an unlimited number of “vice presidents” and “assistant secretaries” drawn from the ranks of the mortgage industry.

The “nomination” process was near instantaneous. A bank entered a name into MERS’s Web site, and, in a blink, MERS produced a “certifying resolution,” signed by Mr. Hultman. The corporate seal was available to those deputies for $25.

Can you the homeowner log onto MERS and see who they claim owns your loan.  Sure –>  Go HERE.

The reality turns out to be a lot messier. Federal bankruptcy courts and state courts have found that MERS and its member banks often confused and misrepresented who owned mortgage notes. In thousands of cases, they apparently lost or mistakenly destroyed loan documents.

Destroyed?  Huh?

…not even the mortgage giant Fannie Mae, an investor in MERS, depends on it these days.

“We would never rely on it to find ownership,” says Janis Smith, a Fannie Mae spokeswoman, noting it has its own records.

If you want to negotiate from a position of strength you will need to file suit against your lender and force them to come forward with proper authority.  Don’t let them hide behind MERS and its smoke screen.

Click here to see & hear from one of the attorneys we recommend from The Gore Law Firm as he speaks about MERS during a live interview on CBS Radio.

MERS discussion with Randall Macchi from The Gore Law Firm

- The Bank Slayer

MERS? It May Have Swallowed Your Loan

By MICHAEL POWELL and GRETCHEN MORGENSON at The New York Times

Although Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and several other large lenders are claiming a Holiday Gift with their self imposed foreclosure freeze sadly it won’t help Texans one single bit!

This “gift” is nothing more than a shameless attempt at improving their poor public image.

Why won’t it help Texans?

Because although they will suspend foreclosures for the holiday season, roughly from Dec. 20 to Jan. 3, the next foreclosure sale date is January 4!!!!!!

While most folks know the name of the Servicer of their mortgage it now identifies the INVESTOR of the loan as well.

It’s easy to look up your loan and see if Freddie, Fannie or some other “investor” claims ownership of your loan.

There are several ways to look up your loan.

First and best way to look up your loan is to use the MIN # (MERS Identification Number)

1. First look at your mortgage documents.  Look for the Deed of Trust (Not the Warranty Deed) or go online and look yours up in the property records.

2. Locate the MIN number in the top right hand corner of the document.

3. Go to https://www.mers-servicerid.org/sis/

4. Search by MIN, or if you do not have your MIN number, Go for the 2nd way to search –> Search by Property Address/Borrower Details (not as accurate)

5.  It should list your servicer and your investor.

But what if it doesn’t find your loan?

Then either you have no MIN and you are not in the MERS system or you entered it incorrectly.

If you are not in the MERS system you can still check the Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac websites to see if they claim to own your loan.

- The Bank Slayer

No wonder Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae need billions each month just to stay afloat.  They need to manage/sell over 240,000 homes!  Yep, almost a quarter of a MILLION homes have been foreclosed since 2008.

To get an idea of the volume of homes they need to sell let’s do a quick comparison to the Greater Houston Area.   The Houston Association of Realtors Multiple Listing Service (MLS) system will likely show around 50,000 home sales for the ENTIRE year.   That includes new home sales as well as resales!

Too bad the billions we are pumping into these zombies is our tax dollars.

Since “we” own Freddie & Fannie can I get the employee discount on a new home?

– The Bank Slayer

Thanks to Personal Finance Bulletin for the below info:

Taxpayers fund mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Last year at this time the two lenders possessed around 120,000 homes mortgaged through various lending banks.  These banks sold the mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who in turn bundled them as securities and sold them to investors. These federal lenders guarantee the payment of the mortgages they sell.  When the homeowners stop making monthly payments, Freddie and Fannie are on the hook for the remainder of the unpaid mortgage.

The 120,000 homes grew to 240,000 in default by September 30, 2010.  The value in these homes are now at $24 billion.  1 in 4 mortgaged homes are now in the hands of Freddie and Fannie based on a RealtyTrac report.   1 in 2  mortgages in the US are owned or guaranteed by one of the two federal lenders.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are backed by The U.S. Treasury through the purchase of shares of preferred stock.  To date $148 billion has been invested in them.  As a dividend the Treasury has received  $17 billion in  two years.   When liquidity becomes a problem they return to the Treasury for more money.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have both requested more funding  from the Treasury during October. It is projected that eventually the foreclosure total could rise from 142 billion to $259 billion by December 2013, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency.