Powered By Blogger
Showing posts with label foreclosures. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foreclosures. Show all posts

Monday, August 09, 2010

State of Rhode Island Mortgage Foreclosure and Sale General Laws.

TITLE 34.Property /CHAPTER 34-27. Mortgage Foreclosure and Sale
Ref. SECTION 34-27-2

WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp.borrowers

Your states laws and  code of enforcement is specific. Under the section § 34-27-2 you maintain a right of mortgagee to bid at sale. – At any sale by public auction made under and according to the provisions of any mortgage of real estate, or of any power of sale contained therein or annexed thereto, the mortgagee in the deed of mortgage or other conveyance, or pledgee, his, her, or their assigns, or his, her, or their heirs, executors or administrators, or any person for him, her, or them, may fairly and in good faith bid for and purchase the estate or property so put up for sale, or any part thereof, in the same manner as it may be bid for and purchased by any other person.

The issuer of the certificates is the Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WMALT Series 2007-OA3 Trust (the “Trust”), deemed a statutory trust formed under the laws of the State of Delaware pursuant to a trust agreement between WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp., as depositor, and Christiana Bank & Trust Company, as Delaware trustee. The pooling and servicing agreement, dated as of the Cut- Off Date (the “pooling agreement”), among the depositor, Washington Mutual Bank, as servicer, the Delaware trustee and LaSalle Bank National Association, as trustee, will restate the trust agreement and will be the governing instrument of the Trust.

The Trust will not own any assets other than the mortgage loans and the other assets described below. The Trust will not have any liabilities other than those incurred in connection with the pooling agreement and any related agreement. The Trust will not have any directors, officers or other employees. No equity contribution will be made to the Trust by either co-sponsor, the depositor or any other party, except for a de minimis contribution made by the depositor pursuant to the trust agreement, and the Trust will not have any other capital. The fiscal year end of the Trust will be December 31.

The Trust will act through the trustee and the Delaware trustee, whose fees and reasonable expenses will be paid or reimbursed by Washington Mutual Bank, as servicer.

Assignment of the Mortgage Loans and Other Assets to the Trust

A pool of mortgage loans, as described in this prospectus supplement, will be sold to the Trust on March 28, 2007 (the “Closing Date”). The Trust will own the right to receive all payments of principal and interest on the mortgage loans due after March 1, 2007 (the “Cut-Off Date”). A schedule to the pooling agreement will include information about each mortgage loan, including:

the applicable loan group or subgroup;
the outstanding principal balance as of the close of business on the Cut-Off Date;
the term of the mortgage loan; and
the mortgage interest rate as of the close of business on the Cut-Off Date and information about how that mortgage interest rate adjusts.
With respect to all of the mortgage loans in loan group 3, loan group 4 and loan group 5, the mortgage notes will not be endorsed to the Trust and no assignment of the mortgages to the Trust will be prepared. Washington Mutual Bank fsb, a wholly-owned subsidiary of WMB, will have possession of and will review the mortgage notes and mortgages related to those mortgage loans as custodian for the Trust and financing statements will be filed evidencing the Trust’s interest in those mortgage loans.

The mortgage pool will be the primary asset of the Trust. The Trust will also contain other assets, including:
Insurance policies related to individual mortgage loans, if applicable;
Any property that secured a mortgage loan that the Trust acquires after the Cut-Off Date by foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure;
The rights of the Trust under the Countrywide servicing agreement; and
Amounts held in the certificate account.
In exchange for the mortgage loans and the other assets described above, the trustee will authenticate and deliver the certificates pursuant to the order of the depositor. It is the intent of the parties to the pooling agreement that the conveyance of the mortgage loans and the related assets to the Trust constitute an absolute sale of those assets.However, in the event that the pooling agreement for any reason is held or deemed to create a security interest in those assets, then the pooling agreement will constitute a security agreement and the depositor grants to the Trust a security interest in those assets. The depositor will file financing statements perfecting such security interest.

Restrictions on Activities of the Trust

Pursuant to the pooling agreement, the Trust will have the power and authority (i) to acquire, hold, lease, manage, administer, control, invest, reinvest, operate and transfer assets of the Trust, (ii) to issue and make distributions on the certificates and (iii) to engage in such other activities as are described in the pooling agreement. The Trust will be required to act in accordance with requirements specified in the pooling agreement that are designed to maintain the Trust’s existence as a legal entity separate and distinct from any other entity. The Trust will not be permitted to do any of the following:
• to engage in any business or activity other than those described in the pooling agreement;
• to incur or assume any indebtedness other than indebtedness incurred under the pooling agreement or any related agreement;
• to guarantee or otherwise assume liability for the debts of any other entity;
• to confess a judgment against the Trust;
* to possess or assign the assets of the Trust for other than a Trust purpose;
• to lend any funds to any entity, except as contemplated by the pooling agreement; or
• to do other actions prohibited by the pooling agreement.

The permissible activities of the Trust may not be modified except by an amendment to the pooling agreement. See “Description of the Certificates—Amendment of the Pooling Agreement” in this prospectus supplement.

Discretionary Activities With Respect to the Trust
The following is a description of material discretionary activities that may be taken with regard to the administration of the mortgage loans or the certificates:
• Each of Washington Mutual Bank and Countrywide Home Loans will be authorized to exercise discretion with regard to its servicing of the related mortgage loans in accordance with the servicing standard specified in the pooling agreement and the Countrywide servicing agreement, respectively. See “Servicing of the Mortgage Loans—WMB—WMB’s Servicing Procedures” and “Servicing of the Mortgage Loans—Countrywide Home Loans—Countrywide Home Loans’ Servicing Obligations” in this prospectus supplement.
• Washington Mutual Bank will be authorized to exercise discretion with regard to the actions taken, as servicer, on behalf of the Trust, as assignee of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.’s rights under the Countrywide servicing agreement (including making requests or demands or giving consents to Countrywide Home Loans).

M.Soliman
expert.witness@live.com


Recognition of Trustee .

The Servicer recognizes the Trustee as owner of the Serviced Loans, and acknowledges that the Serviced Loans are part of a REMIC, and from and after the Effective Date, will service the Serviced Loans in accordance with the Servicing Agreement, as modified by this Agreement, but in no event in a manner that would (i) cause any REMIC to fail to qualify as a REMIC or (ii) result in the imposition of a tax upon any REMIC (including but not limited to the tax on prohibited transactions as defined in Section 860F(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”) and the tax on contributions to a REMIC set forth in Section 860G(d) of the Code). It is the intention of the Servicer and the Trustee that this Agreement shall be binding upon and for the benefit of the respective successors and assigns of the parties hereto. The Servicer shall not amend or agree to amend, modify, waive, or otherwise alter any of the terms or provisions of the Servicing Agreement which amendment, modification, waiver or other alteration would in any way affect the Serviced Loans without the prior written consent of the Trustee.

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

TRUSTEE INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

There are separate areas of tort law including a category of economic torts. Torts are civil wrongs recognized by law as grounds for a lawsuit. The violations are determined by wrongful acts that result in an injury or harm necessary in order to bring a claim. I tell people to ready themselves to first explain to their attorney -“Where are they hurt” This is necessary and constitutes reasons for making a claim.

While some torts are also crimes punishable with imprisonment, the primary aim of tort law is to provide relief for the damages incurred and deter others from committing the same harms. While separated by definition, a breach tends to go hand in hand with a civil tort. This may be especially true in the business of “constructing” foreclosures where collateral is clearly lost to the beneficiary listed on the deed of trust. California courts have commented and that under the statutory scheme for nonjudicial foreclosure, the covenant of good faith is coextensive with respondent’s duty to conduct the foreclosure proceedings fairly, openly and in good faith. (See, e.g., Baron v. Colonial Mortgage Service Co. (1980) .
That duty , conducting the foreclosure proceedings fairly, openly and in good faith, is proffered by the court to extend to all participants in the sale, including prospective bidders.]; Block v. Tobin (1975) 45 The trustee owes a duty to conduct the sale fairly and openly and to secure the best possible price for the benefit of the trustor.

The elements of a cause of action for intentional interference with contract are (1) a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party; (2) defendants knowledge of this contract; (3) defendants intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damage. /Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co. (1990) 50
Injured parties may sue for an injunction to prevent the continuation of the tortious conduct by rouge collections firms who stand-in for a trustee. Injured parties may sue for monetary damages and they include both present and future expected losses. But this say’s little if anything for the quest to maintain possession.

Courts have enunciated loudly (in a prior life) a duty in the trustee in the conduct of a sale itself. A sale under a power in a mortgage or trust deed must be conducted in strict compliance with the terms of the power. The sale must be made fairly, openly, reasonably, and with due diligence and sound discretion to protect the rights of the mortgagor and others, using all reasonable efforts to secure the best possible or reasonable price.

There are numerous specific torts including trespass, negligence, Loan products liability, and distress. Intentional torts are those wrongs which the defendant knew or should have known would occur through their actions or inactions. Negligent torts occur when the defendant's actions were unreasonably unsafe. Strict liability wrongs do not depend on the degree of carefulness by the defendant, But are established when a particular action causes damage.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

SOLIMAN AND RECENT PRESS

The Other Real Estate Crisis Newsweek Voices - Daniel Gross ...
Jan 9, 2008 ... This information is offered by Maher Soliman, the web site ... unity is not yet complete Angela Merkel on Berlin Wall anniversary CNN ...www.newsweek.com/id/87984 - Cached - Similar -

Recession-Proof Real Estate? Newsweek Business Newsweek.com
Jan 30, 2008 ... Saw somthing on TV - Maher Soliman, the managing Director for a ... unity is not yet complete Angela Merkel on Berlin Wall anniversary CNN ...www.newsweek.com/id/106188 - Cached - Similar -

Stumper : BAILEY: With McCain and the Economy, Is the Third Time ... - Nov 7
Here's my NEWSWEEK colleague Holly Bailey with a report from the McCain caravan in ... According to Maher Soliman, an analyst with www.borrowerhotline.com ...blog.newsweek.com/.../bailey-with-mccain-and-the-economy-is-the-third-time-the-charm.aspx - Cached - Similar -

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive ...
May 7, 2008 ... Newsweek article said that one of the members of the Illinois State Senate wanted to run for the U.S. Senate. ...... By BRODY MULLINS and KRIS MAHER May 5, 2008; Page A1 ...... Khaled Soliman, May 7th, 2008 4:44 pm ET ...politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/.../blitzer-what-would-you-like-me-to-ask-barack-obama/ - Similar -
BorrowerClaims: WHY MORTGAGE SECURTIZATION DOES NOT WORK - Nov 7
Jan 7, 2009 ... According to Soliman, "I changed my views and no longer see the problem ... news organizations (Newsweek, CNN and MSNBC) over the internet. ...borrowerclaims.blogspot.com/.../why-mortgage-securtization-does-not.html - Similar -
SubPrime Expert: 06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008
Real Estate: Making Mortgage Loan Counseling Mandatory Newsweek Voices ..... Telephone number 310-765-7388. Maher Soliman Nationwide Loan Services. ...www.foreclosureinfosearch.com/2008_06_01_archive.html - Cached - Similar -
Foreclosureinfosearch / Call Us 310-765-7388: Newsweek Samulson ...
According to Newsweek published report / Samulson: Retail sales dropped 1.2 ... Maher Soliman, analyst for consumer homeowner website said "Samuelson is ...www.foreclosureinfosearch.com/.../newsweek-samulson-storyline-comments.html - Similar -
Show more results from www.foreclosureinfosearch.com
Yahoo! 360° - Entries tagged "cnn"
By Maher Soliman January 30th 2008 / For Immediate Release; ... Tags: foreclosure, countrywide, bankofamerica, newsweek, cnn, latimes ...blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-OUNCBoQifqUOW48iXYNCSEwZyrLGqcjE1Kc-?...cnn - Similar -

Stop Foreclosure! www.borrowerhotline.com
Mar 20, 2008 ... Issue #1 - America's Money: All this week at 12 pm ET, CNN explains how .... Maher Soliman, Managing Director for www.Borrowerhotline.com ...borrowerhotline.blogspot.com/ - Cached - Similar -

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Lender Conferences Gearing Up

On the Agenda for upcoming Conference: Mitigate the impact of borrower stall tactics, including claims arising from bankruptcy proceedings, on foreclosures Respond to suitability and misrepresentation claims tied to Option ARMs and other non-traditional mortgages• Prepare for the effects that emerging regulations and legislation, including amendments to RESPA and TILA, will have on litigation and compliance initiatives Defend against investor claims arising from loan modifi cations Manage the increase in investor repurchase demands and contest improper claims Counter investor claims related to mortgage-backed securities and derivative products, including CDOs and CDS Ensure proper standing before bringing foreclosure proceedings and defeat challenges to loan ownership Defend against claims brought by municipalities seeking damages for alleged harm caused by foreclosures

Friday, July 17, 2009

Homeowners Perhaps something got lost in the translation. NLS does not audit a file. We apologize for confusion (drama) or other points of misunderstanding. Our approach is simple. RESPA TILA SECTION 32 and nearly all other regulatory requirements under HUD are proving worthless as to enforcement. It’s sad and it’s true. Mistakes on a 1008 transmittal are an indication the entire file is improperly disclosed. For that you need an audit? I personally can audit an entire file with a paycheck stub (don’t believe me?) A doctrine of equitable distribution say’s you got the loan, now pay it back regardless. Age race and other components of HMDA are not of consequence to anyone at this point in time. Misrepresenting a borrower income and assets is not material to the courts view of a claim having merit The state is correct – an audit by a mortgage broker, a processor and underwriter and even a chief of staff for Potterville medical center will not amount to anything at all as you die one thousand deaths on the way to losing your home. I DO NOT RECOGNIZE ONE NAME ON THIS SITE (The owner is the exception) from one MBA conference over two decades. What does make a difference is the following. Our penal system have loaded the prisons with business white collar criminals who made willful or tactical errors in the actions they took to accomplish ill gotten profits and steal from the public. They will go free if the criminal aspects of the lenders wrong doings are forgiven. That won’t happen. People on popular web sites attack me as I am a threat to their new underground economy. Leave them be. You must identify the crime that has taken place against you by a lender, the conduit, the broker the WALL STREET “sham” business platform, the insurers and servicing agents. The evidence you obtain will allow you to file a scathing and horrific report with the agency that can likely allow for arguments leading to a criminal investigation. The matter at hand is this – if your loan was a criminal act you must isolate where the criminal allegations took place. A RESPA audit won’t cut it and any attorney jumping into the game who misses these facts is bait for a malpractice suit of monumental size. NACA, HOPE, the POPE and ABBA ZABBA won’t pursue a criminal complaint or lay the foundation for criminal activity. They are there to fight for the rights of those who have hardships and hardships have nothing to do with a banks responsibility. You want a deal on an audit and want a good attorney who can argue in court the merits of a SISA loan gone wrong…don’t call us! You want to better understand what criminal activities seem apparent based on that segment of case law…and what federal and state prosecutors are likely looking for in your file….then call us. You cannot allege criminal acts against anyone to accomplish your goals. But your attorney when armed with this type of information can enter into a meaningful conversation and find your lender is willing to beg you to take a new loan, one you can afford and then even apologize for what they did. Rouge lenders love RESPA audits as they are worthless. An attorney going to court to argue MERS and the lost buried treasure is a waste. I wasted a lifetime studying, memorizing and reconstructing the truth lies and secrets of the mortgage industry. Now i am pressing the criminal aspects of these rouge lenders actions for a select few. These lenders are halfway home to burying the crimes of a century against you the public. Join me if you like or get out of the way- it’s your choice. Any attorney who would like to publicly challenge me here is welcome to do so. why not, i have at least one on month coming after me only to hang up is discontent (for what they thought they knew and don’t). I’m still here . . . nationwide loan services Management admin@borrowerhotline.com www.borrowerhotline.com 310-765-7388

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Foreclosures Report: 1.5 million homes in foreclosure

Homeowners fell behind on mortgage payments in record numbers during the first six months of 2009. The future doesn't look much better. By Les Christie, CNNMoney.com staff writer Last Updated: July 16, 2009: 4:21 AM ET NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The foreclosure plague is not going away -- it's only getting worse. A record 1.53 million properties were in the foreclosure process -- default notices, auction sale notices and bank repossessions -- during the first six months of 2009. That was 9% more than the previous six months and 15% more than the same period of 2008, according to a report released Thursday by RealtyTrac. There were a total of 1.91 million filings resulting in 1 out of every 84 U.S. properties receiving at least filing in the first half of the year. Banks repossessed 386,800 properties. "What this means is, despite the intensity of the efforts on the part of government and lenders we don't have a handle on foreclosures yet," said Rick Sharga, a spokesman for RealtyTrac. And, in a bad sign for a housing recovery, there was no recorded improvement in June, the last month of the cycle. More than 336,000 homes reported foreclosure filings, the fourth straight 300,000-plus month. Filings were up 33% over last June and nearly 5% compared with May. "Foreclosure activity continues to increase to record levels," said James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer of RealtyTrac in a prepared statement. "Unemployment-related foreclosures account for much of this increased activity, and the high number of borrowers who find themselves owing more on their mortgages than their homes' are now worth represent a potentially significant future risk." It's the economy The biggest problem affecting foreclosure figures is the recession. As job losses mount, more out-of-work borrowers are falling behind on payments. And home prices are still falling, albeit at a slower rate, which by itself is enough to drive more homeowners into default. The home-price drop means more homeowners are underwater on their mortgages, owing more than their home is worth. That discourages some borrowers from repaying loans because they see it as a poor financial decision to keep paying on a declining asset. Homeowners are apt to walk away from their mortgages once their home values fall 15% below their mortgage balances, according to recent research reported by Paola Sapienza of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, and Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. They claim that at least 25% of all mortgage defaults may be "strategic," borrowers walking away from their homes because they've lost so much value. And in many of the areas hardest hit by foreclosure, home prices have fallen by 40% or more. Others, however, are working with their lenders, trying to get the terms of their loans modified so they can stay in their homes. But that process has been slow and infuriating to many borrowers and community activists. The Federal Housing Finance Agency, the government watchdog created to manage Fannie Mae (FNM, Fortune 500) and Freddie Mac (FRE, Fortune 500), reported Wednesday that only 13,800 mortgages had been modified by Fannie/Freddie lenders in April. That is down 12% from March. The stats did not include workouts arranged through the Home Affordable Modification Program, the administration's foreclosure prevention effort that seems to be making very slow progress. One reason for the delay is that the workouts just started happening in the past 90 days, and a borrower must make three months of on-time payments before their restructuring can be recorded as a final modification. Another reason for the slow progress, according to a research paper released by the Federal Reserve of Boston, is that banks may expect many homeowners to "self-cure," that is, start paying again without assistance. In a report issued last week, the Fed found that an estimated 30% of all borrowers who miss two payments start repaying on their own. If the lenders had modified these loans, the would have lost money unnecessarily. A second reason, according to the report, is that so many modified loans re-default, with up to 50% of all modified mortgages succumbing.That costs the banks twice: They bear the expenses of the initial workouts and they pay again to finish the foreclosures, including any additional missed payments. And by postponing foreclosures, lenders absorb any subsequent housing value losses. If the final repossessions are delayed a year, the lenders could be getting houses worth 10%, 20% or even 50% less than they were at the point of the original default. The banks would have been better off foreclosing then. "We think these are very powerful forces [acting against modification]," said Manuel Adelino, one of the authors of the report. Where the pain is The Sun Belt suffered more foreclosures than other region during the last six months. California, with 391,611 filings, one for every 34 households, recorded more than any other state. Nevada had the highest foreclosure rate with one for every 16 households. Arizona, one for every 30, and Florida, one for every 33, were next. Utah had the fifth highest rate at one for every 69. Midwestern industrial states did little better with Michigan recording one foreclosure for every 74 households, seventh among the states. Illinois came in eighth with one for every 76; and Ohio, with one for every 86, was twelfth. Georgia, at one for every 70 households, and Idaho, one for every 79, were sixth and ninth respectively. Colorado, with one for every 80, rounded out the top 10.

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Foreclosures Maher Soliman (Nationwide Loan Services LLC)- View Profile Mortgage Asset Backed Securitization By Maher Soliman Expert Witness to Counsel You will find our firm to be a competent expert witnesses who will provide case development consulting for primary, secondary and capital markets including testimony on...

Thursday, April 02, 2009

Wachovia Mortgage Loan Trust, LLC Series 2006-A Trust.

Title of Series The Sponsor’s and Seller’s material obligations in the transaction are to purchase the Mortgage Loans from the Originators and sell them to the Depositor, and to repurchase or substitute defective Mortgage Loans in certain instances, as described in “The Pooling and Servicing Agreement — Assignment of Mortgage Loans” and “— Repurchases of Mortgage Loans” in this prospectus supplement. The following is some information that may be helpful in identifying the structure and potential for vulnerability regarding the pass through vehicle. Wachovia Mortgage Loan Trust, LLC Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-A. Depositor Wachovia Mortgage Loan Trust, LLC. Issuing entity Wachovia Mortgage Loan Trust, LLC Series 2006-A Trust. Seller and Sponsor Wachovia Bank, National Association. Originators and Servicers National City Mortgage Co. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Trustee HSBC Bank USA, National Association. Master Servicer and Certificate Administrator U.S. Bank National Association. Closing Date On or about May 25, 2006. Cut-Off Date May 1, 2006. Distribution Date TRANSFER OF MORTGAGE LOANS The diagram below illustrates the sequence of transfers of the mortgage loans that are included in the mortgage pool. The originators have sold the mortgage loans to Wachovia Bank, National Association. Wachovia Bank, National Association will, simultaneously with the closing of the transaction described herein, sell the mortgage loans to Wachovia Mortgage Loan Trust, LLC, the depositor. The depositor will then transfer the mortgage loans to the trustee.
For a description of the transfers of mortgage loans and the affiliations among various transaction parties, see “The Pooling and Servicing Agreement” and “Affiliations Among Transaction Parties” in this prospectus supplement.
Originators -
Mortgage Loans
Seller and Sponsor -
Mortgage Loans sold pursuant to Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement
The Depositor Mortgage Loans transferred pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement Trustee S-4 The Certificates The certificates will be issued pursuant to a pooling and servicing agreement, dated as of the closing date. A summary chart of the initial class balances, principal types, pass-through rates, interest types and initial ratings of the certificates is set forth on page S-1. The certificates represent all of the beneficial ownership interest in the trust.
Certain listed (The Class B-4, Class B-5 and Class B-6) Certificates are not offered by this prospectus supplement. These non-offered certificates are subordinated to the offered certificates for distributions of principal and interest and for allocations of losses on the mortgage loans. Information provided with respect to the non-offered certificates is included solely to aid your understanding of the offered certificates. Mortgage Pool The mortgage pool will consist of four loan groups of adjustable interest rate, fully-amortizing mortgage loans secured by first liens on one- to four-family properties, which include single-family detached properties, properties in planned unit developments, two-to-four family units, cooperatives, condominiums and townhouses. The Group 1, Group 2, Group 3 and Group 4 mortgage loans provide for a fixed interest rate during an initial period of approximately three, five, seven and ten years, respectively, from the date of origination of each mortgage loan and thereafter provide for adjustments to that interest rate on an annual basis (or, for one mortgage loan, on a semi-annual basis). The interest rate of each mortgage loan will adjust to equal the sum of an index and a gross margin. Interest rate adjustments will be subject to certain limitations stated in the related mortgage note on increases and decreases for any adjustment. In addition, interest rate adjustments will be subject to an overall maximum mortgage interest rate. For the mortgage loans in Group 1, Group 2 and Group 4, the index will be the arithmetic mean of the London interbank offered rate quotations for one-year (or, for one mortgage loan, six-months) U.S. Dollar-denominated deposits as published in The Wall Street Journal. For the mortgage loans in Group 3, the index will be the weekly average yield on U.S. Treasury securities adjusted to a constant maturity of one year, as reported by the Federal Reserve Board in statistical Release No. H.15 (519). All of the mortgage loans in Group 1, Group 2 and Group 4 were originated or acquired and are being serviced by National City, and all of the mortgage loans in Group 3 were originated or acquired and are being serviced by Wells Fargo. S-5 Selected Aggregate Mortgage Loan Data as of May 1, 2006

Saturday, March 14, 2009

Bankruptcy Will Stop A Foreclosure–

How can a bankruptcy filing stop a foreclosure proceeding. I am not a BK attorney but a close associate is and here is what he tells us. The moment you file for bankruptcy protection there is a court order called the automatic stay. The stay goes into effect immediately you see. With foreclosures climbing to record levels, clients facing foreclosure will often ask whether a bankruptcy filing will really stop a foreclosure. According to Carl Kop attorney and expert - yes it will. The automatic stay is important in that it not only prohibits the creditor from pursuing the foreclosure action (or any legal action for that matter), but can also prohibit the state court from hearing the foreclosure case. It stalls them from taking any further action. In fact, the automatic stay stops other federal courts from taking any action on a case affected by a bankruptcy filing. Does this include a foreclosure proceeding has already been filed? Yes! I amtold you can still stop it with a bankruptcy filing. There are exceptions to the general rules of BK and each bankruptcy case is different. If you had a prior chapter 13 case dismissed within one year of your current filing, then the automatic stay will expire thirty (30) days after you file for bankruptcy (unless you file a motion to extend the automatic stay prior to its expiration setting forth sufficient reasons why the automatic stay should be continued.) If you had two or more cases dismissed within a year of your current bankruptcy filing, then the automatic stay does not come into effect at all. You must file a motion to impose the automatic stay setting forth good reasons if you had two or more prior cases dismissed. Then, then upon filing bankruptcy (actually within thirty days), and that the case was filed in good faith. If you have not filed bankruptcy before or at least not had a case dismissed within one year and you are facing foreclosure, a bankruptcy filing will stop the foreclosure. This may provide you with sufficient time to attempt to reorganize your finances so that you can try to save your home.

Sunday, March 08, 2009

MORTGAGE BANKING EXPERT WITNESS

WASHINGTON – Bankruptcy legislation is part of a broader housing package scheduled for a House vote Thursday. On Wednesday, Obama's team announced details of his broader $75 billion housing plan, which features cash incentives for mortgage holders — known as loan servicers — who cut deals with borrowers for new, more affordable terms. The legislation has been the subject of an intense lobbying campaign by the financial services industry, which has worked hard to kill it. The same divisions are at work in the Senate, which is expected to consider its own version of the legislation in the coming weeks. Whats baffeling is how the industry already won several concessions from Democrats in the House, who agreed to limit the measure to existing loans, to homeowners who sought a loan modification from their lenders before filing for bankruptcy, and to people who can no longer afford to pay their mortgages. Democrats wrote a compromise that requires bankruptcy judges to consider whether banks offered homeowners reasonable loan restructuring deals before they weigh in with their own rewrites. Borrowers also would have a responsibility to prove that they tried to modify their mortgages with their lenders before seeking help in bankruptcy court. The deal would require judges to consider whether homeowners were offered a "qualified" loan workout consistent with Obama's plan. That program would let eligible homeowners rework their mortgages to bring their monthly payments down to no more than about one-third of their incomes. The mortgage industry beleives that unrestricted access to bankruptcy court mortgage modifications would impose steep and unpredictable costs on its companies that would be passed along to borrowers as higher fees and interest rates. Lobbyists pressed lawmakers to limit the measure to subprime mortgages and to block homeowners who had been offered a mortgage workout by their lenders from getting one through a bankruptcy judge. The measure is part of a broader housing package that would raise the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's borrowing authority and boost incentives for lenders to rework mortgages. The legislation takes $2 billion out of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout fund to bolster an existing program to allow homeowners rework or refinance their mortgages. The bill is H.R. 1106.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Atlanta Foreclosures

Atlanta Foreclosure Homes - Check our Atlanta foreclosure homes and government owned Atlanta foreclosures. Access thousands of Atlanta repo homes, federal properties and Atlanta commercial foreclosures. Select a foreclosure in Atlanta Georgia at Foreclosures.com

Sunday, January 18, 2009

mortgage defaults and foreclosures continue to rise

As mortgage defaults and foreclosures continue to rise, the impact is spreading well beyond those who are losing their homes. Like everything associated with the nation's housing crisis, the fallout from foreclosures is very local, a fact confirmed by hundreds of e-mails from readers in msnbc.com's Gut Check America. According to a business sector analyst, (NLS Los Angeles, CA) Maher Soliman "Way too many homes are now abandoned by their owners". Soliman agrees "It appears many people are going into bankruptcy. On some streets almost half the homes are empty." Many people have lost 40-50 percent of the value of their homes. “My neighborhood is filled with renters who could care less about the parks or the appearance of the homes,” wrote Joe Brogdon, of Queen Creek, Ariz. “There is a smaller home near mine that has no windows and it is barricaded with plywood to prevent any more vandalism to the house. Many of the lawns are not being taken care of, which does not help the situation for resale or pride of ownership.” In communities across the country, msnbc.com readers report that local governments are coping with shrinking tax rolls, lenders are saddled with more foreclosed homes than they can sell and empty homes in many neighborhoods are being vandalized. “My neighborhood is filled with renters who could care less about the parks or the appearance of the homes,” wrote Joe Brogdon, of Queen Creek, Ariz. “There is a smaller home near mine that has no windows and it is barricaded with plywood to prevent any more vandalism to the house. Many of the lawns are not being taken care of, which does not help the situation for resale or pride of ownership.” Some regions appear to have escaped relatively unscathed. But in hard-hit states like California, Arizona and Florida, readers report that some neighborhoods are becoming virtual ghost towns. Whole condo projects sit half-finished and rotting in the Florida sun. Others report a different kind of isolation; many of those losing their home to foreclosure are reluctant to confide in family or friends until the process is complete. Some neighbors are unsure how to respond. “My community is an upscale middle-class community; I am going through foreclosure right now,” wrote a woman from Pennsylvania. “The neighborhood is very quiet, waiting for the next fall to happen. People do not even talk to each other. They wave but hardly say a word.” In South Lyon, Mich., life is getting lonelier as more houses are abandoned in Jose's neighborhood. Viewers to MSNBC said “I live next door to empty houses instead of neighbors and friends,” he wrote. “It is an overwhelming feeling of dread. You wonder if your family is next." In hard-hit neighborhoods, the glut of foreclosed homes has not only sent prices crumbling — the houses themselves are also falling down, according to a number of readers from around the country. Also, “Our neighborhood is going down the tubes because the properties are going unsold for so long that they're falling into disrepair,” wrote Leslie from Albuquerque, N.M. “It's a mess.” In Memphis, Tenn., Angela reported that her neighborhood was dotted with “growing weedy yards, windows with papers taped to them and broken. There are about five or six such homes in my post-World War II subdivision. And these are NOT expensive homes!” In other cases, abandoned homes are more than an eyesore. Readers in some hard-hit areas report a rise in vandalism, squatting and other crime. “Vandals have been hitting the empty homes that have been affected by foreclosure in my area,” wrote Gloria of Los Angeles. “With summer around the corner and kids out of school, I just worry about fires starting or other serious problems happening.” To prevent the blight that can follow a high concentration of abandoned housing, some local governments are using tax dollars to buy up properties and fix them up — or tear them down. “Our local government is planning to demolish vacant homes,” write Susan, of South Bend, Ind. “It is going to cost the city more money, which in turn creates more tax burden for South Bend's residents. It is a vicious cycle.” With federal housing relief stalled in Congress, some local governments have stepped up with programs offering small loans to help strapped homeowners head off foreclosures. But as the housing market continues to slide, declining property tax revenues are squeezing town and city budgets. During the housing boom, many municipalities enjoyed a windfall in property taxes as the value of homes and other properties soared. Now as those values have fallen back, property owners are challenging pricey assessments. Some local governments facing shrinking tax revenues are resorting to cutting services. “We have terrible local road repair, our parks need landscaping and maintenance,” said Jose from South Lyon, Mich. “We volunteer our time to the village public park district and mow small park lawns with our own gas and equipment. Our fire department is going back to mostly volunteer, and we may have to lay off some police officers.” Kristen Cunningham, director of Community & Economic Development in South Lyon, took issue with Jose's account. "We are a full service city that no doubt has been affected by the foreclosure problems. It obviously is a challenge everywhere," she wrote in an e-mail repsonding to our story. Cunningham said South Lyon has always had a volunteer fire department and is not laying off police officers. "In addition," she said, "the city is in good solid financial condition and regularly maintains its own park system through general fund monies. There are no volunteers mowing any of our parks with their own equipment and gas." A report last November by the U.S. Conference of Mayors forecast losses of $166 billion this year for 361 metropolitan areas. The estimate included lost tax revenue, lost jobs and slower consumer spending but not the financial toll of increased crime, fires and building code violations. Some cities have filed lawsuits against lenders to try to recover costs associated with what local officials claim is predatory lending. In other cases, cities and towns are looking for other ways to raise enough taxes to maintain local services. “My hometown is broke, and the devaluing of the property tax base is cited as one of the reasons,” wrote Bill, form South Gate, Calif. “If the voters pass a 1 cent per dollar sales tax in June, to prevent cutbacks in services, we will have one of the highest rates (9.25 percent) in the country." In Memphis, Tenn., Wayne wrote that “the city and county are both hurting due to the lost tax revenue on the foreclosed homes. This also has had a severe setback on the amount of tax-based funds allocated to education, fire and police protection.” Homeless shelters also report an increase in traffic. Some new arrivals are renters whose landlords defaulted on their loans and lost the property to foreclosure. The National Coalition for the Homeless recently surveyed state and local homeless coalitions and found that 61 percent reported an increase in homelessness since last year. “It has been horrible,” said Earlinda, a Realtor in Reno, Nev. “We now have a ‘tent city’ because the homeless shelters are overloaded." In some communities with high foreclosure rates, lenders are having a tough time selling the properties they’ve taken over. The problem is apparently most severe in large developments that were under construction when the housing bubble burst. “There are well over 500 houses for sale in an area with approximately 5,000 homes,” said Rick from New River, Ariz. “Most are spec homes for sale with sale prices dropped from $100,000 to $200,000. Banks can’t even find buyers at auctions.” Some real estate agents report that when they do find buyers for foreclosed properties, lenders are so swamped they’re having a hard time answering the phone. One San Diego Realtor reported that agents have taken to getting up early to leave voice mail for lenders before their mailboxes fill up. In Pinellas and Pasco counties in Florida, home prices have dropped as much as 40 percent, according to Lorraine Seddon, an agent in Dunedin, Fla. “Banks that should be glad that a contract came through take so much time to respond that buyers buy other homes, leaving these (foreclosed) homes to rot,” she wrote. The housing slowdown has also hurt local businesses in hard-hit areas, forcing layoffs among builders and mortgage lenders. Some of those in the housing industry who still have jobs are worried that they could be next. “I work for a much more conservative bank than most, but all of our income has suffered greatly,” write Chris, of Shawnee, Kan. “We are constantly worried that the doors at work will be closed at any moment, and it is a terrible way to live day to day. From what I can tell, things aren't getting better anytime soon.” Local businesses in hard hit areas are also watching business dry up. “I sell building material to home builders,” wrote Ed, from Georgetown, Del. “It is very scary what’s going on. I’ve seen a lot of builders go out of business.” To be sure, readers in some areas of the country — from Watsontown, Pa., to Alto, N.M. — reported that their communities have been spared the impact of the housing downturn, at least so far. “Property values have not gone down,” wrote Ken of Custer, S.D. “People are still buying and building.” Some readers reported they were benefiting from foreclosure's fallout — including dozens who said they were now able to afford a home in a buyer’s market. “I just moved here, and I picked up a nice house for half of what it sold for in 2005,” wrote Doug, from Phoenix, Ariz. “Thanks, Arizona.” One reader wrote that rising foreclosures had created new employment opportunities. “The foreclosure crisis has been a boon to me and my family,” wrote Lee, of Riverside, Calif. “After three years of unemployment, I have been working for the past year cleaning and maintaining foreclosed houses and preparing them for sale. It has provided work for me that wouldn't have been there otherwise.” But other readers reported that their personal and professional lives were on hold because they couldn’t sell their house to take a new job or fund their retirement. “I recently moved for a new job and am trying to sell my home,” wrote Karen, from Evans, Colo. “My Realtor told me that all of my competition are foreclosures and bank short sales. I will most likely take a $20,000 loss on my house.” “My wife and I are divorcing, but we will have to live together as roommates,” wrote Mick, from Reno, Nev. “We have a fixed-rate loan, so that is not the issue. It's simply that the implosion has depressed house prices so much that we can't sell our house and move on.” Source msnbc.com — JSchoen

Monday, December 22, 2008

WHEN FORECLOSURES CAUSE HUD AND THE SEC TO COLLIDE

By Maher Soliman Mortgage CDO Investments May Meet SEC Issuance Guidelines while falling short of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Disclosure Requirements Press Release 12/20/2008 Los Angles California - A Mortgage Pass Through certificate registration and investment could never sustain the onslaught of the type of scrutiny one would except in an economic collapse. None the less, we have an economic collapse on our hands. The provisions set forth by regulatory mandate and federal and state statues, which are enforced by HUD, are impossible, say industry insiders.. Readers of a popular web site for victims of foreclosure can find satisfaction as well as relief knowing http://www.livinglies.wordpress.com was dialed in early on. As a secondary trading specialist who delivered bulk whole loan assets into these pools for over a decade I find the CDO structures have little original deviation from the mandates for investment disclosure by the SEC. There is considerable concern however for the mass counter compliant and wrongful acts being committed by attorneys according to recent press. Are those really in the wrong who are engaged by each Trust and acting as the substitute trustee’s. There is no way to pre-date documents accrding to Soliman. Nor meet the deadline for the various disclosure timelines in a foreclosure and remain complaint to both agencies, The SEC and to HUD say's other's. These matters where and if proven will likely ensure the attorneys stand before a court and answer to lack of transparency and Joinder allegations under Sarbanes Oxley legislation. Issuer profiles and legal forms vary according to jurisdiction and asset type: I. Master trust: pool of trusts or a pool of assets in one trust agreement a. Owner trust: cash flows are tailored to create certain maturities of tranches (ref. investor targets). II. Grantor trust: cash flows as passed directly through to investors w/o manipulation Securitization Requirements All collateral should be pledged to the trustee or other independent third party acting as agent for investors. The collateral should be segregated and pledged under normal ISDA requirements and in the possession of the trustee or some other fiduciary third party. Considerations: 1. Assets must be immune from bankruptcy estate of seller (non-recourse financing) 2.Originator retains no legal interest in assets. Though some economic benefit may be retained 3.Issuing vehicle is a "bankruptcy-remote" entity: a.Arrangement to prevent issuer from incurring additional liabilities or expenses b.Restrictive covenants: issuer must not pursue voluntary bankruptcy proceedings i.no "substantive consolidation", i.e. issuer's assets are not considered part of originator's assets It’s obvious from the above highlights from a registration that again, any attempts to adhere to both SEC and to HUD regulatory requirements will cause the collateral to be disturbed. If so say experts, it will likely be deeemed impaired and subject to arguments in a foreclosure. If found to impact the deed due to any deceptive acts the transaction may be voidable. Soliman said "normally, this condition will cause the conveyance by trustee sale to fail." It's therefore difficult to see where a recovenyance can take place under any set of circumstances. These matters where and if continued will likely ensure these trust and trustee attorneys show they have standing before a court and answer to transparency allegations and lack of “Joinder” amongst the collective combinations under Sarbanes Oxley legislation.

Monday, October 20, 2008

WEB SITE SHOWS YOU HOW TO STOP FORECLOSURE

Take steps to avoid foreclosure -- or at least minimize its impact. At this moment in time, Americans are losing, or close to losing, their homes. Its an epedemic say's Maher Soliman, a Los Angeles based foreclosure expert as domestic foreclosures are hitting record numbers. Not everyone will qualify, but anyone late paying your mortgage must discover what you can do to avoid foreclosure. The objective should be first to save your home and also to protect your credit rating. Do not be willing to give up without considering the options. Foreclosure will damage your credit rating and can likley make things difficult for you to purchase another home anytime soon. Also, if the profits from selling your home don't cover the unpaid portion of your loan, your lender might sue you for the rest. Your best options if you're having trouble making mortgage payments include: 1) Try in earnest to negotiate with your lender 2) Seek government assistance 3) Filing for bankruptcy 4) Negotiate selling your home yourself 5) Deed in lieu (Give your home deed to the lender). Negotiating With Your Lender As soon as you realize you'll have trouble paying your mortgage -- ideally, before you've missed any payments - contact your lender. Now, more than ever, lenders are willing to negotiate with home loan borrowers, if only to reduce the number of foreclosures they're dealing with. (Some lenders are even taking the initiative and contacting at-risk borrowers themselves.) Do it sooner rather than later. If you call soon, you may be able to work out a solution with your lender. But if you've already missed three or four payments, it may be too late, and the lender may insist on foreclosure. Possible solutions. The lender may accept partial payments for a few months (though you may have to agree to make up the difference later), accept a late payment, or agree to redo the terms of your loan. What to say when you contact your lender. Here's what you should ask for in lender-language. (And by the way, you'll probably need to get to the right department first -- it may have a name like "loss mitigation.") Forbearance You make a reduced payment, or no payment, for an agreed-upon period of time. Usually, the lender requires you to make up the difference at a later time. The lender is most likely to agree to this if you can demonstrate that you will soon receive a bonus, tax refund, or some other extra cash. Loan reinstatement. You agree to make up your missed (or reduced) payments by a specific date. Loan modification. Your lender agrees to alter the terms of the loan so that you can better afford the payments. For example, the lender may agree to add your missed payments to your loan balance, to stretch out your loan over a longer term (which will lower your payments but result in more interest over the life of the loan), or to convert an adjustable rate to a fixed rate mortgage. Getting Government Help The U.S. government is currently discussing ways to help homeowners facing foreclosure (and thereby lessen the impact on the U.S. economy). In the first plan to be implemented, FHASecure, the Federal Housing Administration (or FHA, at www.fha.gov) may grant FHA refinancing to borrowers who can show: a history of on-time mortgage payments before the borrower's teaser rates expired and the loans reset interest rates that have or will reset between June 2005 and December 2008 3% cash or equity in the home a sustained history of employment, and enough income to make the mortgage payment. Of course, many people won't be helped by FHASecure, particularly if they've lost their job or their house's value has declined. Keep your eyes on the news for other programs or forms of relief. Filing for Bankruptcy Filing for bankruptcy may help you keep your home, or at least get you out from under your mortgage. When you file, the foreclosure process is legally stopped (called an "automatic stay"). It can't be reopened until your bankruptcy case closes or the lender gets court permission to proceed (called "lifting the stay"). Selling Your Home If you simply can't afford the house you own, the above options won't help. You will probably lose your home. But don't wait for your lender to make the first move. If your home has appreciated in value since you bought it, you may be able to sell it yourself. (In fact, real estate investors may show up on your doorstep hoping for a bargain.) Again, contact your lender, who may let you stop making payments until the house is sold.

Compliance Examiners are a Must to Keep Home!

Private examiners are less detectives and more of an investigator. NLS is a auditor to be exact that will assist individuals, businesses, and attorneys by finding and analyzing information. They connect small clues to solve mysteries or to uncover facts about legal, financial, or personal matters. Private detectives and investigators offer many services, including executive, corporate, and celebrity protection; pre-employment verification; and individual background profiles. Some investigate computer crimes, such as identity theft, harassing e-mails, and illegal downloading of copyrighted material. They also provide assistance in criminal and civil liability cases, insurance claims and fraud, child custody and protection cases, missing persons cases, and premarital screening. They are sometimes hired to investigate individuals to prove or disprove infidelity. Private compliance investigators have many methods to choose from when determining the facts in a case. Much of their work is done using a computer, recovering deleted e-mails and documents, for example. They may also perform computer database searches or work with someone who does. Computers allow investigators to quickly obtain huge amounts of information such as a subject’s prior arrests, convictions, and civil legal judgments; telephone numbers; motor vehicle registrations; association and club memberships; and even photographs. Detectives and investigators also perform various other types of surveillance or searches. To verify facts, such as an individual’s income or place of employment, they may make phone calls or visit a subject’s workplace. In other cases, especially those involving missing persons and background checks, investigators interview people to gather as much information as possible about an individual. Sometimes investigators go undercover, pretending to be someone else to get information or to observe a subject inconspicuously. Most detectives and investigators are trained to perform physical surveillance, which may be high-tech or low-tech. They may observe a site, such as the home of a subject, from an inconspicuous location or a vehicle. Using photographic and video cameras, binoculars, and cell phones, detectives often use surveillance to gather information on an individual; this can be quite time consuming. The duties of private detectives and investigators depend on the needs of their clients. In cases that involve fraudulent workers’ compensation claims, for example, investigators may carry out long-term covert observation of a person suspected of fraud. If an investigator observes him or her performing an activity that contradicts injuries stated in a worker’s compensation claim, the investigator would take video or still photographs to document the activity and report it to the client. Detectives and investigators must be mindful of the law when conducting investigations. They keep up with Federal, State, and local legislation, such as privacy laws and other legal issues affecting their work. The legality of certain methods may be unclear, and investigators and detectives must make judgment calls when deciding how to pursue a case. They must also know how to collect evidence properly so that they do not compromise its admissibility in court. Private detectives and investigators often specialize. Those who focus on intellectual property theft, for example, investigate and document acts of piracy, help clients stop illegal activity, and provide intelligence for prosecution and civil action. Other investigators specialize in developing financial profiles and asset searches. Their reports reflect information gathered through interviews, investigation and surveillance, and research, including review of public documents. Computer forensic investigators specialize in recovering, analyzing, and presenting data from computers for use in investigations or as evidence. They determine the details of intrusions into computer systems, recover data from encrypted or erased files, and recover e-mails and deleted passwords. Legal investigators assist in preparing criminal defenses, locating witnesses, serving legal documents, interviewing police and prospective witnesses, and gathering and reviewing evidence. Legal investigators also may collect information on the parties to the litigation, take photographs, testify in court, and assemble evidence and reports for trials. They often work for law firms or lawyers. Corporate investigators conduct internal and external investigations for corporations. In internal investigations, they may investigate drug use in the workplace, ensure that expense accounts are not abused, or determine whether employees are stealing merchandise or information. External investigations attempt to thwart criminal schemes from outside the corporation, such as fraudulent billing by a supplier. Financial investigators may be hired to develop confidential financial profiles of individuals or companies that are prospective parties to large financial transactions. These investigators often are certified public accountants (CPAs) who work closely with investment bankers and other accountants. They might also search for assets in order to recover damages awarded by a court in fraud or theft cases. Detectives who work for retail stores or hotels are responsible for controlling losses and protecting assets. Store detectives, also known as loss prevention agents, safeguard the assets of retail stores by apprehending anyone attempting to steal merchandise or destroy store property. They prevent theft by shoplifters, vendor representatives, delivery personnel and even store employees. Store detectives also conduct periodic inspections of stock areas, dressing rooms, and restrooms, and sometimes assist in opening and closing the store. They may prepare loss prevention and security reports for management and testify in court against people they apprehend. Hotel detectives protect guests of the establishment from theft of their belongings and preserve order in hotel restaurants and bars. They also may keep undesirable individuals, such as known thieves, off the premises. Work environment. Many examiners such as NLS spend time away from their offices conducting interviews or doing surveillance, but some work in their office most of the day conducting computer searches and making phone calls. When the investigator is working on a case, the environment might range from plush boardrooms to seedy bars. Store and hotel detectives work in the businesses that they protect. Investigators generally work alone, but they sometimes work with others during surveillance or when following a subject in order to avoid detection by the subject. Some of the work involves confrontation, so the job can be stressful and dangerous. Some situations call for the investigator to be armed, such as certain bodyguard assignments for corporate or celebrity clients. In most cases, however, a weapon is not necessary because the purpose of the work is gathering information and not law enforcement or criminal apprehension. Owners of investigative agencies have the added stress of having to deal with demanding and sometimes distraught clients. Private detectives and investigators often work irregular hours because of the need to conduct surveillance and contact people who are not available during normal working hours. Early morning, evening, weekend, and holiday work is common. Training, Other Qualifications, and Advancement [About this section] Back to Top Most private detectives and investigators have some college education and previous experience in investigative work. In most States, they are required to be licensed. Education and training. There are no formal education requirements for most private detective and investigator jobs, although many have college degrees. Courses in criminal justice and police science are helpful to aspiring private detectives and investigators. Although related experience is usually required, some people enter the occupation directly after graduation from college, generally with an associate or bachelor’s degree in criminal justice or police science. The 2006 educational attainment for private detectives and investigators, in percent, was as follows: Percent High school graduate or equivalent 18 Some college, no degree 26 Associate's degree 8 Bachelor's degree 34 Master's degree 13 Professional degree or PhD 3 Most corporate investigators must have a bachelor’s degree, preferably in a business-related field. Some corporate investigators have a master’s degree in business administration or a law degree; others are CPAs. For computer forensics work, a computer science or accounting degree is more helpful than a criminal justice degree. An accounting degree provides good background knowledge for investigating fraud through computer forensics. Either of these two degrees provides a good starting point after which investigative techniques can be learned on the job. Alternatively, many colleges and universities now offer certificate programs, requiring from 15 to 21 credits, in computer forensics. These programs are most beneficial to law enforcement officers, paralegals, or others who are already involved in investigative work. A few colleges and universities now offer bachelor’s or master’s degrees in computer forensics, and others are planning to begin offering such degrees. Most of the work of private detectives and investigators is learned on the job. New investigators will usually start by learning how to use databases to gather information. The training they receive depends on the type of firm. At an insurance company, a new investigator will learn to recognize insurance fraud. At a firm that specializes in domestic cases, a new worker might observe a senior investigator performing surveillance. Learning by doing, in which new investigators are put on cases and gain skills as they go, is a common approach. Corporate investigators hired by large companies, however, may receive formal training in business practices, management structure, and various finance-related topics. Because they work with changing technologies, computer forensic investigators never stop training. They learn the latest methods of fraud detection and new software programs and operating systems by attending conferences and courses offered by software vendors and professional associations. Licensure. The majority of States and the District of Columbia require private detectives and investigators to be licensed. Licensing requirements vary, however. Seven States—Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, and South Dakota—have no Statewide licensing requirements, some States have few requirements, and many others have stringent regulations. For example, the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services of the California Department of Consumer Affairs requires private investigators to be 18 years of age or older; have a combination of education in police science, criminal law, or justice and experience equaling 3 years (6,000 hours); pass a criminal history background check by the California Department of Justice and the FBI (in most States, convicted felons cannot be issued a license); and receive a qualifying score on a 2-hour written examination covering laws and regulations. Detectives and investigators in all States who carry handguns must meet additional requirements for a firearms permit. There are no licenses specifically for computer forensic investigators, but some States require them to be licensed private investigators. Even where licensure is not required, a private investigator license is useful to some because it allows them to perform follow-up or complementary tasks. Other qualifications. Private detectives and investigators typically have previous experience in other occupations. Some have worked in other occupations for insurance or collections companies, in the private security industry, or as paralegals. Many investigators enter the field after serving in law enforcement, the military, government auditing and investigative positions, or Federal intelligence jobs. Former law enforcement officers, military investigators, and government agents, who are frequently able to retire after 25 years of service, often become private detectives or investigators in a second career. Others enter from jobs in finance, accounting, commercial credit, investigative reporting, insurance, and law. These individuals often can apply their prior work experience in a related investigative specialty. Most computer forensic investigators learn their trade while working for a law enforcement agency, either as a sworn officer or a civilian computer forensic analyst. They are trained at their agency’s computer forensics training program. Many people enter law enforcement specifically to get this training and establish a reputation before moving to the private sector. For private detective and investigator jobs, most employers look for individuals with ingenuity, persistence, and assertiveness. A candidate must not be afraid of confrontation, should communicate well, and should be able to think on his or her feet. Good interviewing and interrogation skills also are important and usually are acquired in earlier careers in law enforcement or other fields. Because the courts often are the judge of a properly conducted investigation, the investigator must be able to present the facts in a manner that a jury will believe. The screening process for potential employees typically includes a background check for a criminal history. Certification and advancement. Some investigators receive certification from a professional organization to demonstrate competency in a field. For example, the National Association of Legal Investigators confers the Certified Legal Investigator designation to licensed investigators who devote a majority of their practice to negligence or criminal defense investigations. To receive the designation, applicants must satisfy experience, educational, and continuing-training requirements and must pass written and oral exams. ASIS, a trade organization for the security industry, offers the Professional Certified Investigator certification. To qualify, applicants must have a high school diploma or equivalent; have 5 years of investigations experience, including 2 years managing investigations; and must pass an exam. Most private-detective agencies are small, with little room for advancement. Usually, there are no defined ranks or steps, so advancement takes the form of increases in salary and assignment status. Many detectives and investigators start their own firms after gaining a few years of experience. Corporate and legal investigators may rise to supervisor or manager of the security or investigations department.

Monday, October 06, 2008

California Foreclosures A foreclosure is the procedure, which is followed in enforcing a creditor's rights on a debt, which is secured by any lien on a property . The lender will attempt to recover its security upon the occourance of a default. In California, lenders can foreclose on deeds of mortgage or trust in default, through either a non-judicial or judicial foreclosure process. Judicial and non-judicial California foreclosures are limiting in that California is a one action State. The process of a judicial foreclosure involves filing a lawsuit to obtain a court order to foreclose. Here, there is no "power of sale" clause present in the mortgage or deed of trust. After the court declares a foreclosure, the house to be foreclosed is auctioned off to the highest bidder. The lender may seek a deficiency judgment. Now where it is not permitted in a non judicial setting, a borrower in some circumstances, has up to one-year time for redeeming the property in a juducal prceeding. A "power of sale" clause in a mortgage or deed of trust is enforced in a non-judicialforeclosure foreclosure. The trustee on behalf of the lender will pursue the "power of sale" using this clause found in the deed of trust or right to accelerate in the note that authorizes the sale of property satisfy any balance on a loan in the event of a default. California foreclosure guidelines In the case of the deed containing the power of sale clause that specifies the time, place and term of sale, the procedure has to be followed at the specified time and place. The notice of default will be filed and run 90 days before a Notice of Sale is filed. The NOD has to be recorded in the county the property is located 1) at least 14 days prior to the sale and, 2) has to be mailed by certified, with a return receipt requested post to the borrower at least 20 days before the sale. 3) It has also got to be posted on the property 20 days before the sale and in one public place in the county it is to be sold in. 4) This notice has to include the time, location and property of the foreclosure sale, the trustee's name, address, phone number and a statement that the property is being sold at an auction. The borrower then has 5 days before the foreclosure to cure the default and thus stop the process. The sale can be held on any business day between 9a.m. and 5p.m. at the location specified in the notice. Anyone can bid at the sale, but the trustee requires proof of the bidders' ability to pay their full bid amount. If necessary, the sale can be postponed by an announcement at the place and time of the original foreclosure.

Sunday, August 24, 2008

Mortgage-Mess: Introduction The domestic mortgage market has been the most efficient in the world, and has offered unparalleled financing opportunities. "Caveat Emptor" credit policies though have led to record numbers of consumers achieving the American dream of homeownership. Today, more than 2 of 3 households own their homes and equity in these homes represents approximately one-half of American households. For persons 65 or older, this represents more than $2 trillion in home equity1 – wealth transferable to future generations. Today we can evidence through trained and expert auditing evidence that many borrowers are being misled and sold products that strip, not build, home equity and household wealth. Innovative products with complicated and variable terms, once marketed to the "sophisticated borrower," are now marketed to a less affluent borrower for their "affordability." "Push-marketing" to borrowers who many times are not even shopping for a loan, often through telemarketing, as well as cross-marketing to mortgage shoppers (by acquiring lists from credit bureaus of recent mortgage " inquirers," including a substantial amount of information on their financial activities), is common. Many borrowers, especially the less affluent, are not able to absorb monthly "payment shocks" when variable terms reset, such as expiration of teaser rates and/or interest rate increases. Borrowers find way too soon that their mortgage exceeds the proceeds from the sale of the home. This can be evidenced in monthly statements showing negative amortized loans or the current slump in housing prices. Securitization has changed the mortgage market dramatically since the mid-1970s when most banks (the primary source of mortgage lending) held loans, and thus the risks, to maturity. Today, lenders agents (mortgage brokers) account for over one-half of mortgage loan production and nearly all loans are pooled, sold, and securitized. In fact, fee structures of loans are not based on the performance of the loan. Compensation often includes immediate payment to the broker, without any regard to the loan's appropriateness or ultimate performance. In fact, broker fee structures often include more revenue from the lender for selling higher rate loans to borrowers who qualified for lower rate loans (yield spread premiums.) shown as POC line items. When equity is stripped from first generation homeowners, disproportionately minorities in today's market, it is stripped from future generations, and places at risk the recent success in decreasing minority homeownership gaps. When equity is stripped from older persons, it is stripped from children and grandchildren. In both instances, the clock cannot be turned backward to "catch back up." Abuses in the Subprime Market Older Persons, Persons of Color2 are more likely to hold a Subprime Loan. Borrowers 65 years of age or older were found to be 3 times more likely to hold a subprime mortgage than borrowers less than 35 years of age.3 Numerous studies have shown that persons of color are much more likely than whites to have a subprime loan, even when similar in income levels. Increasing Foreclosures in the Subprime Market Harm Individuals and Communities. A recent study found that 2.2 million Subprime home loans made in recent years have or will end in foreclosure, Of the 2.2 million Subprimes home loans made in recent years the cost to homeowners is over $164 billion.4 The same study estimates that one out of every five subprime mortgages originated during the past two years will end in foreclosure. For seniors, a foreclosure can mean losing a retirement nest egg as well as a lifetime of family memories without the ability to ever recover. Lack of Clarity in the Responsibility of Broker Regarding Affordability: Fannie Mae's 2003 National Housing Survey found that 41 percent of adults [mistakenly] believe "housing lenders are required by law to give you the best possible rates on loans."5 Borrowers should not be led to believe that "Agents" of the lender, the broker, have responsibility for getting them the "best loan." Thanks to lender negligence, revenue for the mortgage broker is not related to the performance of the loan, but to the sale alone – often with a payment structure (yield spread premiums) that benefits the broker the interest rate on the loan. Confusing the borrower is negligent. Increasing Complexity of Products Make Disclosures Inadequate to Protect Consumers: The complexity, terminology, and variability of these products are enormous, and choosing the right loan becomes difficult.6 7 Disclosures simply cannot compensate for the sophistication it takes to shift through all the information and assess the possible risk, given the vast array of possible outcomes – the lender and it's professionals in the transaction must be responsible for making appropriate loan offers. Predatory Practices Strip Equity from Borrowers It is estimated that borrowers lose billions of dollars annually in predatory lending practices.8 In addition, there is evidence that anti-predatory lending laws are working such that lending continues to occur9 only without inappropriate and predatory terms, including prepayment penalties.10 In fact, a recent study offers that such laws may be precipitating an additional favorable outcome – they serve as a vital source of confidence for borrowers who might otherwise be afraid to participate in the mortgage market11 with all the advertising, telemarketing, and volatility in the stock market. Public Outcry on Subprime Lending Ability to Repay Establish that every borrower has the ability to repay, without selling his/her home or refinancing into other loan. The complexity of the market today, and the risk at stake (i.e., losing one's home) requires that the professional making the loan offer assess the borrower's situation, including income, as to the appropriateness of the loan, and not based solely on the value of the home. When underwriting variable products, future income must be considered with respect to potential increases at payments resets throughout the life of the loan. Responsibility- Ensure that all parties, not just the borrower, have a stake in a successful loan outcome. HOEPA Lenders must have appropriate responsibility – It cannot simply be left upon the shoulders of the borrower. Brokers (as agents to the lender), appraisers, and servicers must have appropriate responsibility – it cannot simply be left upon the shoulders of the borrower. When Congress passed the HOEPA, it recognized that the secondary mortgage market could control the actions of the primary mortgage market. This is even more true today when the secondary market entities buying subprime and predatory mortgages not only provide wrongdoers access to the capital markets but actively shape, price, and underwrite many of the alternative mortgage products to their own specifications. Any new federal law must incent assignees to provide mortgage products with terms and costs that encourage responsible lending and that deter inappropriate lending. Regulators must increase vigilance in oversight. Regulators must clearly and forcefully address the wide array of products and terms, and the breadth of professionals offering loans. Borrowers must be assured12 that they can be confident in the banking system and the quality of loan products in the market. As early as 1998, HUD and the Fed recommended increased regulatory enhancements (via the Home Ownership Equity Protection Act, or HOEPA) to protect against predatory lending abuses. In 2000, these two agencies held joint hearings and issued a report recommending the expansion of consumer protections for homeowners targeted by predatory lenders. Yet, little action has been taken. Federal Legislation must serve as the floor, not the ceiling, and allow state laws to continue to protect borrowers. Federal legislation is important to protect consumers in key areas in which states have been ruled to be preempted (Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act), for example. However, federal preemption must be carefully crafted to ensure that it only preempts state law to the extent that federal law adequately addresses the issue. Broad federal preemption extinguishes states abilities, as "laboratories of democracy" to be responsive to the problems in their state. Economic indicators like housing markets and job losses will have disparate geographic impacts and states must be in a position to respond. Currently, states, Ohio and California to name two, have already begun to respond to recent economic trends and their impact upon housing markets and foreclosure issues. Footnotes 1 U.S. Census data. 2 National Community Reinvestment Corporation, Fannie Mae Foundation, and the Woodstock Institute are among numerous groups with research findings showing disparate lending to minorities. 3 PPI Data Digest Number 57. 4 Center for Responsible Lending. Losing Gound. 5 Understanding America's Homeownership Gaps: 2003 Fannie Mae National Housing Survey. 6 Lacko, J and Pappalardo, J. (2004). The Effect of Mortgage Broker Compensation Disclosures on Consumers and Competition: A Controlled Experiment. The Federal Trade Commission. 7 The RESPA Report 2003.(2003). AARP's Public Policy Institute. 8 $9.1 billion in 2001. Stein, E. (2001). Quantifying the Economic Cost of Predatory Lending. Center for Responsible Lending. 9 Quercia, R. (2003). Anti-Predatory Lending Law: Doing What It's Supposed To Do. Center for Community Capitalism. 10 Wei, L. and Ernst, K. The Best Value in the Subprime Market: State Predatory Lending Reforms, Center for Responsible Lending (February 23, 2006). 11 Bostic, Engel, et. al. State and Local Anti-Predatory Lending Laws: The Effects of Assignee Liability and Legal Remedies. Presented at the Federal Reserve Board's Conference, Financing Community Development. (March 2007). Special Thanks to AARP Public Policy Institute June 2007©2007 AARPAll rights are reserved and content may be reproduced, downloaded, disseminated, or transferred, for single use, or by nonprofit organizations for educational purposes, if correct attribution is made to AARP. Public Policy Institute, AARP, 601 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20049

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Stop Foreclosure! www.borrowerhotline.com

In Countrywide’s 2006 annual report, the company touted the massive growth of its loan production from $62 billion in 2000 to $463 billion in 2006--three times the increase of the U.S. residential loan production market, which tripled from $1.0 trillion in 2000 to $2.9 trillion in 2006. 26 percent of Countywide loans were for California properties. The company sold an ever-increasing number of loans in an effort to gain a 30 percent market share of loan originations and then sell its loans on the secondary market, as mortgage-backed securities or pools of whole loans. Countrywide’s securities trading volume increased from $647 billion in 2000 to $3.8 trillion in 2006. Countrywide routinely sold loans based upon a borrower’s stated income and without verifying the information. Loan officers memorized scripts that marketed low payments by focusing on the potential customer’s dissatisfaction, saying, for example, “Which would you rather have, a long-term fixed payment, or a short-term one that may allow you to realize several hundred dollars a month in savings?” The loan officer did not state that the payment on this new loan would exceed the payment on the current loan. Countrywide paid greater compensation to brokers for loans with a higher interest rates, as well as prepayment penalties, because it could sell those loans for higher prices on the secondary market. Countrywide also paid rebates to brokers who originated loans with prepayment penalties, adjustable rates and high margins. Countrywide operated an extensive telemarketing operation in which it touted its expertise and claimed to find the best financial options for customers. Customer Service representatives at Countrywide call centers were required to complete calls within three minutes, often processing sixty-five to eight-five calls per day. Employees who did not meet quotas were terminated. The company’s deceptive marketing practices, designed to sell costly loans while hiding or misrepresenting the terms and dangers, included: • Encouraging borrowers to refinance or obtain financing with complicated mortgage instruments like hybrid adjustable rate mortgages or payment option adjustable mortgages • Marketing complex loan products by emphasizing a very low “teaser” rate while misrepresenting the steep monthly payments, increased interest rates and risk of negative amortization • Dramatically easing underwriting standards to qualify more people for loans • Using low or no-documentation loans which allowed no verification of stated income • Hiding total monthly payment obligations by selling homeowners a second mortgage in the form of a home equity line of credit • Making borrowers sign a large stack of documents without provider time to read the paperwork • Misrepresenting or hiding the fact that loans had prepayment penalties As the secondary market’s appetite for loans increased, Countrywide further relaxed its standards to finance borrowers with ever-decreasing credit scores. Countrywide employees routinely overrode the company’s computerized underwriting system, known as CLUES, which issued loan analysis reports recommending or discouraging loans based on factors such as a consumer’s credit rating. As the pressure to produce loans increased, Countrywide set up an entire department in Plano, Texas, at the direction of Mozilo and Sambol, where employees could submit requests for underwriting exceptions. In 2006, 15,000 to 20,000 loans a month were processed through this exception process. Countrywide’s deceptive sales practices resulted in a large number of loans ending in default and foreclosure. According to Countrywide’s February 2008 records, a staggering 27 percent of its subprime mortgages were delinquent. Overall, approximately 20,000 Californians lost their homes to foreclosure in May 2008 and 72,000 California homes were in default, roughly 1 out of 183 homes. Despite receiving numerous complaints from borrowers claiming that they did not understand their loan terms, Countrywide ignored loan officer’s deceptive practices and loose underwriting standards. Countrywide also pushed its borrowers to serially refinance, repeatedly urging borrowers to obtain home loans to pay off their current debt. Today’s lawsuit, filed this morning in Los Angeles Superior Court, redacts confidential information Countrywide provided during the attorney general’s investigation. The attorney general is seeking the company’s consent to file an amended complaint that removes the redactions. During the course of its investigation into Countrywide, state investigators reviewed hundreds of thousands of documents and interviewed scores of witnesses including consumers and former employees. Consumers who believe they have been victimized by Countrywide Consumers should file a complaint by contact the Attorney General’s Public Inquiry Unit in writing at Attorney General's Office California Department of Justice Attn: Public Inquiry Unit P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, California or through an online complaint form: http://ag.ca.gov/contact/complaint_form.php?cmplt=CL The case is People v. Countrywide, Los Angeles Superior Court case number LC081846.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Entry for May 10, 2008

Maher E Soliman

NLS Director

Experienced Wall Street institutional auditors backed by legal professionals serving foreclsure victims. Our auditors are looking for instances of predatory lending, such as

· Deceptive lender practices,

· Unlawful acceptance,

· Negligent lending against minorities,

· Equity skimming,

· Non compliance,

· Violations of lenders own published guidelines,

· Over charging,

· No benefit to the borrower loans,

· Underwriter unwarranted exceptions,

· Deceptive Disclosure (computer generated 1003 applications)

· Reg Z Violations (absence of a handwritten application)

Fact: Unlawful lending practices are common in instances where a lender offers a Stated Income loan program.

Information: A lender is required to have you complete an application in your own handwriting. If not, you should initial all critical discloser information; such as your income, assets and time in current residence. Falsification of income and assets, absent of a handwritten application, is deceptive act. The occurrences’ of such are often prevalent with a Lenders “Stated Income and Stated Assets” programs. Income and credit acceptance misrepresentation, if unbeknownst to a borrower, are grounds for a loan rescission.

Borrowerhotline.com

NLS Nationwide Loan Settlement707 Wilshire Boulevard

53 Floors, the AON Building

Los Angeles, California 90017

View Original Article

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Experts Corner: Another FDIC Bank Failure

American Marine Bank

News of another FDIC member bank falling under the FDIC control was published late this week. The “Emerald City” is the latest to be welcomed back to join the party! Characteristic of the FDIC bulletins that we have come to be familiar with in 2008 and 2009, we are told if you had a loan with American Marine Bank, the friends and family members at the FDIC want you to continue to make your payments as usual.

Our question is to whom? Who is the holder in due course?The purpose of this analysis and discussion of the FDIC are subject to the various parties’ who have interest in your loan. It’s about their representations, conduct and decisions made while enforcing a foreclosure. Making a bad decision or employing conduct viewed to be deceptive will cause any transaction or enforcement of a right to a security to be rendered voidable.

Furthermore the asset may suffer from malfeasance and willful error and omissions causing the loan to be valued far below its market value due to serious impairment. Successfully demonstrating in court the reasons why your loan has become so seriously impaired that the real security, a deed of trust or mortgage, will fall into a judicial abyss and subject the true holder in due course to lose its rights to in a recovery of the asset in a foreclosure. In other words the right to accelerate and foreclose becomes lost to the transaction

Your loan was likely sold after it originated. A sale of the asset versus a government backed insurance guaranty is the single most controversial component of the subprime lenders dilemma.

A bonifide sale and transfer must be evidenced which differentiates the private label loans from the GSE or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac class of loans delivered to Wall Street.

In a true sale the lender who sold it is lost to the privileges and rights to the asset forever. So I guess the question is not so much about a foreclosure due to a breach and delinquent obligation. This discussion is for us to understand to “whom” you owe the money and what right do they have to enforce the obligation and right to foreclose? Lawful Transfers



A “transfer” is the “streets” vernacular for booking a sale of a loan or pool of loans. The transfer of an asset by the lender to a less than arms investor is routinely conducted solely for accounting purposes. None the less it’s a sale that is forever entered in to the books.



The purpose of this analysis and discussion of the FDIC are subject to the various parties’ representations and decision making that may cause the asset to become so impaired that the real security, a deed of trust or mortgage becomes lost to the transaction. My last sale as a trader was a transfer of a bulk pool of “toxic waste” was back in 2001. The loans acquired and sold under my direction were never really that bad as we had one of the lowest delinquency rates in the region for sub prime assets sold and serviced. What I do know or at least remember from my days of bulk whole loan trading was from selling to the same major market leaders who are in trouble today.



Let’s back up for a moment to consider how accountants arrive at a specific value. A valuation is necessary for a foreclosure to take place just as it is for the original loan to be sold. A sale involves a contract and the essential elements f the law amongst the two parties. The first is consideration (money) and the second is the intent of the parties for lawful exchange and or transfer.



Consideration is required for transferring any good or service amongst one party to another, including a sale of a bulk pool of mortgage loan receivables.

If a mortgage is valued at par then you typically measure its worth at the combined cost to date or basis in the asset. A true and more accurate valuation is based upon the market and what one will pay assuming demand. It’s the true inherent value of a gallon of milk that will force someone to go elsewhere or not to drink milk at all. The same rationale holds true for an asset such as a closed mortgage receivable subject to its ability to attract a fair price in an open market. A mark to market value is entered by an accountant prior to sale if the owner is seeking to value the worth of the assets it holds.



Estimating value based on the future worth of an asset is something that continues to attract criticism whereby a historical valuation is entered based on a discounted future value. A presumption of value is calculated in a variety of ways sometimes using an internal rate of return offset by depreciation. In the mortgage industry I call this type of valuation complete lunacy. And this is where things get interesting with taking a look back at the cause of the mess we are now in.



Generally Accepted Accounting Principals aka “GAAP” allows us a standard to apply a historical value on a loan which is necessary for estimating consistency as with the life of a loan. The terms of the note say 30 years but we know that homeowners rarely keep a loan to term. Valuations use variables such as prepayment velocity or life based on a traditional or historic early payoff.



The CPR is the measurement of prepayment speed determine from reversion (sale of a home) refinance or the opposite end of the spectrum which is delinquency and default. Mortgages originated over the last decade were attributed an estimated holding time or CPR of say 60 months. Other things that influence price and for understanding the lenders desire to become fixated with the sub prime mortgage sector are subject to ethical scrutiny. I am referring to extreme maximum leverage used to buy loans and the introduction of something called accounting practices such as derecongnition. The latter is suspect, according to many accountants, as it offer no real value to a transfer and subject to entering a “gain on sale.”



The "streets" ability to substantiate its reporting methods. The Expert Witness must have among other things a legal understanding and verifiable accounting practices background. So figure an offshore investor will take a coupon of 1% at twice the current alternative which was a US Treasury. So I guess a WAC of 8% would yield on $100,000 certificate up to $800,000 in capital investment. Or is that $100,000 yielding 8 separate $100,000 certificates?



What ever it is its six of one and half a dozen of the other. It makes me want to run to the Hampton's and buy the biggest home they can offer. It makes me want to find the worse of the worse credit and put them into a loan.....any loan.



The problem with this madness conducted under the great GWB (and side kick “Don't call me Cheney call me "Dick”) administration is the regulatory absence for the bubble Wall Street elite would eventually pop.



The money raised was at a huge multiple and was causing CDO product to suffer from heavy demand internationally in a market that had long exceeded capacity. ( . . . .It makes me cringe and recall the old Keystone Kops silent flicks; remember the morons running around that said nothing and were always trying to help while and causing even more chaos …..Anyway!



I cannot pinpoint of fully grasp the role of the FDIC here but fear we may have an accounting play that shows the bank lines were actually used as “paid in capital” . It’s called derecongnition under GAAP and FASB accounting pronouncements for isolating the source and use of funds.



Will this help your arguments to save your home? YOU BET IT WILL! The big question is where the logic here is and why would the bank regulators let this happen? These Pretender Lenders were not pretenders at all. I call them “Tender Lenders” who tendered a note like currency instead of parking it in a vault like the asset it is. Therefore when tendered the check is electronically debited (hmm) and treated like a cancelled check.



The lost note is not a coat lost by a child at school. It’s lost to the payee who failed to deliver to the payor that check evidencing a debit stamped paid in full.



Hey, Barney just a minute . . . Hey, Wilma I’m home!!!!! So lets say these guys raised volumes of cash at huge multiples and did so with FDIC capitalization or tax payer insured capital contributions into a “NewCo” or De novo or S*P* E*.



If so, I feel the SPE is more like an STD and its all absolute "Bull Crepes". Where did these guys put all the capitalization anyway from money and stock…Huh? Especially with all these stringent FDIC risk weight capital set aside requirements. It’s a regulatory capital priority and basic fiscal mandate enforced by the OTS.



I got to know, where did they "Deposit" the money and stock ...do you know? I am referring to the "Deposits by the Wall Street “Depositors” you see. Deposited, Depositor, Depository, Restroom, tell me Wendy! Where’s the beef! Howard, who goofed I must known, who goofed!



Hey! ....wait a minute!!!....D*E*P*O*S*I*T*O*R*S! Yikes…OMG! How much more can we take!



So back to the failure of another institution, one of Americas and Pacific Northwest’s finest! American Marine Bank. So who do we bring an action against now? FDIC say’s “for all questions regarding “new” loans and the lending policies of the new successor call Columbia State Bank, and to please contact your branch office.



They continue that shares of American Marine Bank were owned by its holding company, AMB Financial Services Corporation, Bainbridge Island, WA. The holding company was not included in the closing of the bank or the resulting receivership. So if you are a shareholder of AMB Financial Services Corporation, please do not contact or file a claim with the Receiver. You may contact AMB Financial Services Corporation directly for information. How convenient is that….a BK waiting to happen.





The FDIC claims it does offer a reference guide to deposit brokers acting as agents for their investor clientele. This web site outlines the FDIC's policies and procedures that must be followed by deposit brokers when filing for pass-through insurance coverage on custodial accounts deposited in a failed FDIC Insured Institution. Wait a minute here now just slow down. FDIC makes no mention of a lender consumer grievance, and tells us to call the broke parent of the bank. Now are these loans in question considered FDIC troubled assets? Okay, we cannot help you with a predator loan but we will be back to foreclose on you?



My heart is pounding right now and I cannot take anymore folks…..really! But on a more serious note, consider the following. A bad notary signature, broken promise by a “Tender Lender” or forged MERS document is not the argument to bet the house on (no pun intended) It won’t get you to the promised land so can the need for an audit. It won’t get you to the Promised Land, so here is my advice!







SAVE YOUR MONEY! . . . UNLESS YOU WANT TO BORE THE HELL OUT OF A JUDGE AND GET THROWN OUT OF COURT.



It’s time to step up or step down!





By "Toxic Waste Guru" (LOL)



M.Soliman



expert.witness@live.com



REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE CUSTODIAN .

(ii) If Custodian determines that the documents in the MortgageFilefor a Delivered Mortgage Loan conform in all respects with Section3(b)(i),and unless otherwise notified by Buyer in accordance with Section3(b)(i),Custodian shall include such Mortgage Loan in the CustodialMortgage LoanSchedule issued to Buyer.

If the documents required in any Mortgagedonot conform (except as otherwise notified in Section 3(b)(i)),Custodianshall not include such Mortgage Loan in any Custodial Mortgage LoanSchedule. Custodian shall notify Sellers and Buyer of any documentsthatare missing, incomplete on their face or patently inconsistent andof anyMortgage Loans that do not satisfy the criteria listed above.Sellers shallpromptly deposit such missing documents with Custodian or completeorcorrect the documents as required by Section 3(a) or remove therelatedMortgage File from the Request for Certification.

On or prior tothePurchase Date and as a condition to purchase, except with respectto aWet-Ink Mortgage Loan, Custodian shall deliver to the Buyer anelectronicCustodial Mortgage Loan Schedule to the effect that the Custodianhasreceived the Mortgage File for each Purchased Mortgage Loan on theMortgageLoan Schedule and as to each Mortgage File, specifying any documendelivered and any original document that has not been received, andverifying the items listed in this Section 3(b).(c) As required by Section 3(a), Custodian shall deliver to Buyer,nolater than 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the related Purchase Date(provided, thatthe

Custodian has timely received the items required in Section2(b) herein),electronically or via facsimile, followed, if requested in writingby Buyer, byovernight courier, a Custodial Mortgage Loan Schedule havingappended thereto aschedule of all Mortgage Loans with respect to which Custodian hascompleted theprocedures set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(i) hereof andcertify that it isholding each related Mortgage File for the benefit of Buyer inaccordance withthe terms hereof.

Pleading (Not for Use) Lenders egregious, ongoing and far reaching fraudulent schemes

COMPLAINT ---------------------------------------------------- INTRODUCTION COME NOW THE PLAINTIFF, IN THIS MATTER AND CASE that arises out of Defendants' egregious and ongoing and far reaching fraudulent schemes for improper use of of Plaintiff's identity, negligent and/or intentional misrepresentation of appraised fair market value upon which Plaintiff was contractually bound to rely and factually entitled to rely, fraud in the inducement, fraud in the execution, usury, and breaches of contractual and fiduciary obligations as Mortgagee or "Trustee" on the Deed of Trust. Claims further cite the "Mortgage Brokers," "Loan Originators," "Loan Seller","Mortgage Aggregator," "Trustee of Pooled Assets", "Trustee or officers of Structured Investment Vehicle", "Investment Banker", "Trustee of Special Purpose Vehicle/Issuer of Certificates of 'Asset-backed Certificates'", "Seller of 'Asset-Backed' Certificates (shares or bonds)," "Special Servicer" and Trustee, respectively, of certain mortgage loans pooled together in a trust fund. 2. The participants in the securitization scheme described herein have devised business plans to reap millions of dollars in profits at the expense of Plaintiff and other investors in certain trust funds 3. In addition to seeking compensatory, consequential and other damages, Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief as to what (if any) party, entity or individual or group thereof is the owner of the promissory note executed at the time of the loan closing, and whether the Deed of Trust (Mortgage) secures any obligation of the Plaintiff, and A Mandatory Injunction requiring reconveyance of the subject property to the Plaintiff or, in the alternative a Final Judgment granting Plaintiff Quiet Title in the subject property. FACTS SUMMARY OF THE FACTS OF THIS CASE 4. Plaintiff is the nominal payor on the subject promissory Note. The Loan Seller is a financial institution that was paid a fee to pose as a residential mortgage lender, when in fact the source of loan funds and the actual lender (Investors in Certificates) and underwriter (Mortgage Aggregator and Investment Banker) were other parties whose identities and receipt of fees and profits were withheld from Plaintiff at Closing and despite numerous requests continue to be withheld from Plaintiff by the Defendants contrary to the requirements of Federal Law and applicable State Law. 5. Unknown to Plaintiff, the Loan Seller, acting as principal in its relationships with the "independent appraiser" of the property and the mortgage broker and mortgage originator, induced the Plaintiff into a transaction that did not and could not meet normal underwritingstandards for a residential mortgage. The Loan Seller posed as a conventional mortgage lender thus leading Plaintiff to reasonably believe that the Loan Seller, the mortgage broker, and the loan originator had an interest in the success( repayment of the loan) of the transaction that Plaintiff was induced to believe was being executed at the time of the "closing" of the subject loan transaction. 6. In fact, the Loan Seller, mortgage broker, appraiser, loan originator, title agent, escrow agent and Trustee on the Deed of Trust, had no financial stake (i.e., liability) in the transaction andno interest other than obtaining Plaintiff's signature on a "loan" that could never be repaid, contrary to representations and assurances from the conspiring participants in this fraudulent scheme. In fact, the "Appraisal" was intentionally and knowingly inflated along with other loan data to justify the closing of the "loan transaction." 7. Plaintiff relied upon the due diligence of the apparent "Lender" (i.e., actually the Loan Seller) in executing the and accepting the closing documents. In fact, no "lender" was involved in the closing in the sense of an entity performing due diligence and evaluation pursuant to national standards for underwriting and evaluating risk of loaning money in a residential loan closing. 8. Thus no bank or other financial institution actually performing under the standards, rules and regulations governing such institutions was the "lender" which is the basis for Plaintiff's cause of action for usury, to wit: that the inflated appraisal added an undisclosed cost to the loan which when added to the other terms, disclosed and undisclosed, and amortized over the real expected life of the "loan" exceeds the limits set by the State legislature for usury and is not subject to exemption because the presence of a financial institution in the transaction was a ruse in which the form of the transaction covered over and mislead the Plaintiff as to the real parties in interest and the fees generated by the production of the subject "loan transaction." Their purpose was solely to collect fees, rebates, kickbacks and profits that were never disclosed to Plaintiff and have only recently been discovered by Plaintiff through consultation with experts in securitization of residential mortgage loans, and diligent research including the filings of some parties with the Securities and exchange Commission which disclose the normal manner of operating this fraudulent scheme. 10. Plaintiff has repeatedly requested and demanded compliance with Qualified Written Requests under Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and other applicable state and Federal Statutes which the Defendants have either ignored or refused to acknowledge or refused to resolve, copies of which demands are attached hereto as Exhibits and incorporated herein. 11. Plaintiff's Counsel and other professionals hired by Plaintiff have conducted interviews with witnesses and have personally observed the practices and facts alleged herein. Besides theobvious theft of identity which lies at the core of the pattern of conduct defining the Defendants' illegal and fraudulent scheme, it is observably obvious that the property was appraised improperly, never verified despite "stringent" underwriting standards imposed by Government Sponsored Entities (interim investors) with which the Defendants purported to comply (and did not) to wit: the appraisal report attached hereto and incorporated herein clearly shows the fair market value of the site (without improvements) quadrupling in less than 24 months and then returning to original value within 6 months after the closing of the "loan" transaction. 12. Further, no less than three legal persons apparently claim to have performed the appraisal only two of which are shown to have received compensation and one of which is already admitted as merely being a pass-through vehicle of Quicken Loans by which Quicken Loans could claim, but not earn, additional undisclosed fees. Upon information and believe Defendant (name) may have performed the only review for appraisal services although the appraisal report was apparently produced by Defendant Cornerstone for a fee of $450 onto which the stamped signature of Defendant Quintero appears. Quintero does not claim to be an employee of Cornerstone and is believed by Plaintiff to be an "independent contractor". The settlement statement also reports an appraisal fee to Defendant TSI, which is a vehicle through which Quicken Loans improperly charges borrowers undisclosed fees and does not perform any work whatsoever. 13.The Loan Seller was named as the Payee on the subject promissory note and the beneficiary under the mortgage terms allegedly securing the performance under the subject note. The "Trustee" was named as the Trustee on the Deed of Trust executed at the time of the alleged"closing" of the "loan transaction." In accordance with State law, the Deed and terms of security were recorded in the county records. 4.Notwithstanding the above, and without the knowledge of the Plaintiff, the Loan Seller had entered into Assignment and Assumption Agreements with one or more parties and Pooling and Service Agreements with one or more parties including but not limited to the mortgage aggregator prior to or contemporaneously with the "Closing" of the subject "loan transaction." 14.1. Under the terms of these agreements, the Loan Seller received a sum of money, usually on receiving an application for a loan equal to the gross amount of the loan sought by Plaintiff plus a fee of 2.5% or more which was allocated to the subject loan transaction. 15.Contrary to the documents presented before and during the "closing" of the "loan transaction" the Loan Seller was neither the source of funding nor the "Lender." 15.1. Thus at the time of recording, the source of funding and the "Lender" was a different entity than the nominal mortgagee or beneficiary under the deed of trust and was neither named nor disclosed in any fashion. 15.2. The security for the "loan" thus secured an obligation that had been paid in full by a third party. Said third party(ies) was acting as a financial institution or "Lender" without even having been chartered or registered to do so despite regulations to the contrary from laws and rules of State or Federal authorities and/or agencies. 16.Some form of documentation represented by the Loan Seller to the Mortgage Aggregator was presented before or contemporaneously with the "closing" of the loan" transaction. In some cases the documentation included actual copies of the documents presented at "Closing." 16.1. In most cases it consisted of either forged blank notes or vague descriptions of the content of the notes that were placed into the pool of assets that would be "securitized." 16.2. Plaintiff has discovered numerous cases in which the "loan closing" either did not take place at all or included documentation substantially different than the original offer and acceptance and substantially different than what could have been reported to the Mortgage Aggregator prior to the "closing." Plaintiff has discovered numerous cases in which foreclosure has proceeded despite the fact that no loan closing was ever consummated, no papers were ever signed, or the loans were properly rescinded properly under law. 17.Plaintiff does not know what version of documentation was presented to the MortgageAggregator and if the Mortgage Aggregator took one or more varying descriptions of the alleged "loan documents" into more than one pool of assets which was eventually sold for the purpose of securitizing the assets of the pool which included the subject loan transactioneither once or more than once. Plaintiff has requested such information numerous times onlyto be met with complete silence and defiance or obfuscation from the Defendants. 18.There is no assignment of the subject mortgage in the county records, but there is a non-recorded Pooling and Services" Agreement and a non-recorded Assignment and Assumption Agreement which appears to substitute the Trustee over the pooled assets for the nominal Trustee in the Deed of Trust. 18.1. The powers of this second Trustee were in turn transferred to either a Trustee for a Special Investment Vehicle (which performed the accounting and reporting of the pool assets) or to an investment bank Collateral Debt Obligation manager whose department performed the accounting and reporting of the pool assets. 18.2. The reporting of the pool assets consisted principally of descriptions of the notes "signed" by borrowers and limited descriptions of the general terms of the note suchthat the note appeared to be more valuable than the initial terms of payment by the "borrower." 19.The note from the subject "loan transaction" was eventually allocated into a new corporation (Special Purpose Vehicle) formed for the express purpose of holding the pooled assets under certain terms. 19.1. The terms included the allocation of payments from one note to pay any deficiency in payment of another note in unrelated "loan transactions" contrary to the terms of each such note which required payments to be allocated to the principal, interest, escrowand fees associated with only that specific "loan transaction." 19.2. Whether such "deficiency" was caused by the difference between the higher general terms of description of the note or the lower actual payment requirements from the"borrower" is not known, despite numerous requests for accounting and the refusal of Defendants to provide any such information. 0.The Investment Banking firm arranged through payment for a false inflated appraisal of thecertificates and/or issuer of the certificates that would be sold to investors in much the sameway as it had procured the false appraisal of the property that "secured" the "loan transaction." In addition, insurance was purchased from proceeds of this transaction, creditdefault swaps were purchased from proceeds of this transaction, the investors investmentswere "oversold" to create a reserve pool from which the SPV could pay deficiencies in payments, and the SPV created cross-collateralization agreements and overcollateralization of the pool assets to assure payments to the investors, thus creating co-obligors on the payment stream due from the Plaintiff on the subject "loan transaction." 1.The pool assets, including the Plaintiff's subject "loan transaction " were pledged completelyto the owners of the "asset-backed securities." All the certificates were then transferred to aSeller who in turn sold the certificates in varying denominations, each of which had slightlydifferent terms depending upon which segment of the pool (tranche) secured the investment. 2. If there is a holder in due course of the Plaintiff's note arising from the subject "loantransaction" it is the investors who purchased said securities (certificates). Some of saidsecurities are held by the original purchaser thereof, others were sold at weekly auctionmarkets, others were paid by re-sales of property that was "secured", others were paid fromprepayments, others were paid by sale at full or partial price to the investment bank thatoriginated the entire transaction, some of which might be held by the Federal Reserve as non-recourse collateral, and others might have been paid by one or more of the insurance, creditdefault swaps, cross guarantees or cross collateralization of the segment of the pool thatsecured the relevant investor who owned certificates backed by a pool of assets that includedthe subject "loan transaction." 3. It is doubtful that any of the Defendants have any knowledge or have made any effort todetermine whether the putative holders in due course have been paid in whole or in part. Itcan only be said with certainty that these Defendants seek to enforce loan documents for which they have already been paid in full plus illegal fees for participating in an illegal scheme. These Defendants seek to add insult to injury by demanding ownership of the property in addition to the receipt of payment in full long before any delinquency or default even allegedly occurred. 4. In order for these Defendants to maintain legal standing in connection with the subject loan transaction they are required to show the entire chain of title of the note and the entire chainof title of the mortgage. They have refused to do this despite numerous requests, leading PLaintiff to concluded that the Defendants cannot produce such evidence of a complete chain of title or are intentionally withholding the information that would show breaks in such chain. 5.Plaintiff is left in the position of being in an adversary roceeding with ghosts. While these Defendants have informally offered or considered providing indemnification for any third party claims, the fact remains that any relief awarded these defendants, any standing allowed to these defendants would expose the Plaintiff to multiple claims and suits from an unknown number of parties and entities that all claim, possibly correctly, to the holders in due course.Any grant of ac certificate of title to an entity other than Plaintiff or the nominal mortgagee creates an incurable defect in title. 26.There is no recording of any document in the county records which predates the Defendants' attempt to initiate foreclosure and/or eviction or which would authorize them to proceed. Significance of REMIC 27.Mortgage backed Securities (MBS) Certificates are "pass through Certificates," where the Trust has elected to be treated as a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit ("REMIC") to enjoy the tax exempt status allowed under 15 U.S.C. §§806A-G. 27.1. REMIC regulations impose very strict limitations as to the nature of the investments aREMIC trust may make (i.e. "permitted investments") and transactions which it maynot undertake (i.e. "prohibited transactions"). 27.2. Any violation of REMIC regulations has significant tax implications for the Trust, as well as all Certificate holders. For example, any income realized by the Trust from a "prohibited transaction" is taxed at 100%. 27.2.1. The REMIC regulations also provide that any entity that causes the REMIC regulations to be violated is liable to the Trust and the Certificate holders for the entire amount of the tax. 27.3. Only income from "qualified mortgages" and permitted investments" may enter a REMIC trust. 27.4. A "qualified mortgage" is an obligation (i.e. mortgage) which is principally secured by an interest in real property which (1) was transferred to the Trust on the startup date,(2) was purchased by the REMIC Trust within 3 months after the startup date or (3)any qualified replacement mortgage. 27.5. Permitted investments are limited to: 27.5.1. Cash Flow Investments (i.e. temporary investment where the Trust holds money it has received from qualified mortgages pending distribution to the Certificateholders); 27.5.2. Qualified Reserve Assets (i.e. any intangible property which is held forinvestment and is part of a reasonably required reserve to provide for fullpayment of expenses of the REMIC or amounts due on regular interests in theevent of defaults on qualified mortgages or lower than expected returns on cashflow investments. 27.5.2.1. These investments are for very defined purposes and are to be passive innature. They must be "reasonably required." 27.5.3. Liquidation Proceeds from "foreclosed property" which is acquired in connection with the default or imminent default of a "qualified mortgage" held by the Trust. 28. In order to maintain the REMIC status, the Trustee and the Servicers must ensure that the REMIC receives no income from any asset that is not a "Quailed Mortgage" or a "Permitted Investment." 26 U.S.C. § 806F(a)(2)(B). 28.1. Prohibited Transactions include the disposition of a qualified mortgage (except where the disposition is "incident to" the foreclosure, default, or imminent default of the mortgage); or the receipt of any income from an asset that is not a Qualified Mortgageor a Permitted Investment. 26 U.S.C. § 860F(a)(2)(B). 28.2. Prohibited Transactions are taxed in an amount 100% of the REMIC's net income from such prohibited transaction. 26 U.S.C. § 860F(a)(1). 28.3. Contributions of any "property" – e.g., cash, mortgages, etc. – made to the REMIC areaxed at 100% of the contribution, except for the four following exceptions: 28.3.1. Contributions to facilitate a "clean up call" (i.e. the redemption of a class of 28.3.2. regular interest, when by reason of prior payments with respect to those interests 28.3.3. the administrative costs associated with servicing that class outweigh the benefits 28.3.4. of maintaining the class). Reg. § 1.860G-2(j)(1). 28.3.5. Any cash payment in the nature of a guarantee, such as payments to the REMIC Any violation of REMIC regulations will defeat the privileged tax status and will subject the REMIC to 100% taxation, plus penalties and interest. These taxes and penalties are ultimately borne by the Certificate holders. under a surety bond, letter of credit or insurance policy. 28.3.6. Any cash contribution during the three month period after the start-up day; and Any cash contribution to a qualified reserve fund made by a holder of a residual interest. On a monthly basis, the Investment Banking firm and/or its agents, servants or employees compiled, individually and in concert, oversaw and approved all the information contained in the Distribution Reports and electronically sent same to certain parties. 29.1. Based upon research performed by experts on behalf of the Plaintiff. the data regarding the number of bankruptcies, aggregate Special Servicing Fees, and aggregate Trust Fund Expenses was routinely incomplete, false, and/or misleading. 29.2. Further said report intentionally obfuscated the illegal allocation of payments, the failure to disclose payments, and the effect on the alleged obligation of the Plaintiff, to wit: despite numerous insurance products, credit default swaps, cross collateralization, over collateralization and polling at multiple levels, money received by some or all of these Defendants under the pretense of it being a "Mortgage Payment" was in fact retained, reserved, applied to non-performing loans to make them appear as though they were performing loans, or paid as fees to the enterprise Defendants described in this complaint. 29.3. Based upon the failure of the Defendants to respond, Plaintiff has every reason to believe that the party receiving the payments (Amtrust Bank) is neither the holder in due course of the note nor the owner of any rights under the mortgage provisions of the deed of trust. 29.3.1. Further, Plaintiff has every reason to believe that her payments are not being forwarded to the holder in due course of the note nor to any other authorized party. 29.3.2. Accordingly Plaintiff is in jeopardy, to wit: the true holder in due course and potentially dozens or even thousands of third parties could come forward claiming an unsatisfied interest in the promissory note and may or may not be subject to Plaintiffs various affirmative defenses and counterclaims. "transaction." for example, if the toxic waste paper wold under cover of Plaintiffʼs credit rating and identity was sold at an investment return of 6% and the mortgage note carried a principal balance of $300,000, the enterprise Defendants sold the "investment" certificates on that "loan" for approximately $740,000 and thus received $440,000 in illegal, fraudulent and undisclosed "profits" or "fees" in a $300,000 mortgage transaction.29.3.8.4. Thus the economics of mortgage origination changed, to wit: the worse the loan, the more money the enterprise defendants made as long as there were enough people, like Plaintiff, whose identify was used to hide the high volume ( and high profit) of toxic waste loans. 29.3.8.5. It was thus in the financial interest of the enterprise Defendants to create unrealistic and false market expectations, deceiving the public as a whole in specified geographical areas of the country that were identified by these enterprise Defendants as targets. 29.3.8.6. Since these illegal profits were not disclosed, the Plaintiff is entitled to an accounting and a pro rate share of the profits obtained by the illegal, improper and undisclosed use of her name, credit rating and identity. 29.3.8.7. Based upon the opinion of Plaintiffʼs experts, Plaintiffʼs share of said profits would be in excess of $1 million. 30. The Distribution Reports are supposed to accurately reflect the "financial health of the trust," and provide Certificate holders,with important data such as the number of loans in bankruptcy, the aggregate amount of special servicing fees, and the aggregate amounts of trust fund expenses. Each and every one of these categories is essential for to assess its profit and loss potential in the REMIC entity. Furthermore, this data is used by bond rating agencies to assess the value of the Certificates. 31. Based upon the filings and information of the Plaintiff it appears that no accurate accounting has ever been presented to anyone and that therefore the identity and status of any putative holder in due course is completely shrouded in secrecy enforced by these Defendants, their agents, servants and employees. 31.1. Unreported repurchases of certificates or classes of certificates would and did result in a profit to the REMIC that went unreported, and which was not credited to Borrowers where the repurchase was, as was usually the case, the far less than the original investment. 31.2. While the Plaintiff would never have entered into a transaction in which the true nature of this scheme was revealed, any profits, refunds, rebates, fees, points, costs or other income or gain should be credited on some basis to said borrowers including Plaintiff herein. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 32. The end result of the false and misleading representations and material omissions of Defendants as to the true nature of the mortgage loan actually being processed, which said Defendants had actual knowledge was in direct conflict with the original Uniform Residential Loan Application, early TIL, and Plaintiff' stated intentions and directions to said Defendants at the time of original application for the loan, fraudulently caused Plaintiff to execute predatory loan documents. 33. At no time whatsoever did Defendants ever advise Plaintiff (nor, as far as Plaintiff can determine, any "investor" in certificates of mortgage-backed securities) that: 33.1. the mortgage loan being processed was not in their best interest; 33.2. the terms of the mortgage loan being processed were less favorable than the fixed-rate loan which Defendants previously advised Plaintiff that they qualified for; 33.3. that the mortgage loan was an inter-temporal transaction (transaction where terms, risks, or provisions at the commencement of the transaction differ at a later time) on which Plaintiff was providing cover for Defendants' illegal activities. 33.4. that Plaintiff would likely be placed in a position of default, foreclosure, and deficiency judgment regardless of whether she met her loan obligations once the true lender or true holder(s) in due course appeared; 33.5. that the originating "lender", that being Defendant Capital Mortgagebanc and/or Amtrust Bank and/or undisclosed third parties, had no intention of retaining ownership interest in the mortgage loan or fully servicing same and in fact may have and probable had already pre-sold the loan, prior to closing, to a third party mortgage aggregator pursuant to previously executed documentation (Assumption and assignment Agreement, Pooling Services Agreement, etc. all executed prior to Plaintiff's "loan Closing." 33.6. that the mortgage loan was actually intended to be repeatedly sold and assigned to multiple third parties, including one or more mortgage aggregators and investment bankers (including but not limited to Defendants DOES 1-10), for the ultimate purpose of bundling the Plaintiff' mortgage with hundreds or perhaps thousands of others as part of a companion, support, or other tranche in connection with the creation of a REMIC security known as a Collateralized Mortgage Obligation ("CMO"), also known as a "mortgage-backed security" to be sold by a securities firm (and which in fact ended up as collateral for Asset-Backed Securities Certificates, created the same year as the closing); 33.7. that the mortgage instrument and Promissory Note may be sold, transferred, or assigned separately to separate third parties so that the later "holder" of the Promissory Note may not be in privity with or have the legal right to foreclose in the event of default; 33.8. that in connection with the multiple downline resale and assignment of the mortgage and Promissory Note that assignees or purchasers of the Note may make "pay-downs" against the Note which may effect the true amount owed by the Plaintiff on the Note; 33.9. that a successive assignee or purchaser of the Note and Mortgage may not, upon assignment or purchase, unilaterally impose property insurance requirements different from those imposed as a condition of the original loan (also known as prohibition against increased forced-placed coverage) without the Plaintiff' prior notice and consent; 34.As a result of the closing and in connection therewith, Defendants placed the Plaintiff into a pool of a sub-prime adjustable rate mortgage programs, with Defendants intentionally misleading Plaintiff and the other borrowers and engaging in material omissions by failing to disclose to Plaintiff and other borrowers the fact that the nature of the mortgage loan applications had been materially changed without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent, and that Plaintiff was being placed into a pool where the usual loan was an adjustable rate mortgage program despite borrowers not being fully qualified for such a program. 35.Prior to the closing, Defendant Capital Mortgagebanc and/or Amtrust Bank and/or undisclosed third parties failed to provide to Plaintiff the preliminary disclosures required by the Truth-In- Lending Act pursuant to 12 CFR (also known as and referred to herein as "Regulation Z) sec. 226.17 and 18, and failed to provide the preliminary disclosures required by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") pursuant to 24 FR sec. 3500.6 and 35007, otherwise known as the GFE. 36.Defendant Capital Mortgagebanc and/or Amtrust Bank and/or undisclosed third parties also intentionally failed and/or refused to provide Plaintiff with various disclosures which would indicate to the Plaintiff that the consumer credit contract entered into was void, illegal, and predatory in nature due in part to the fact that the final TIL showed a "fixed rate" schedule of payments, but did not provide the proper disclosures of the actual contractually-due amounts and rates. 37.Defendants failed and/or refused to provide a HUD-1 Settlement Statement at the closing which reflected the true cost of the consumer credit transaction. As Defendants failed to provide an accurate GFE or Itemization of Amount Financed ("IOAF"), there was no disclosure of a Yield Spread Premium ("YSP", which is required to be disclosed by the Truth-In-Lending Act) and thus no disclosure of the true cost of the loan. 38.As a direct and proximate result of these failures to disclose as required by the Truth-In– Lending Act, Defendant MOTION received a YSP in a substantial amount of without preliminary disclosure, which is a per se violation of 12 CFR sec. 226.4(a), 226.17 and 18(d) d (c)(1)(iii). The YSP raised the interest rate which was completely unknown to or approved by the Plaintiff, as they did not received the required GFE or IOAF. 39. In addition, the completely undisclosed YSP was not disclosed by Defendant in their broker contract, which contract was blank in the area as to fees to be paid to Defendant. This is an illegal kickback in violation of 12 USC sec. 2607 as well as State law which gives rise to all damages claims for all combined broker fees, costs, and attorneys' fees. 40.The Amount Financed within the TIL is also understated which is a material violation of 12 CFR sec. 226.17 and 18, in addition to 15 USC sec. 1602(u), as the Amount Financed must be completely accurate with no tolerance. 41.Defendants were under numerous legal obligations as fiduciaries and had the responsibility or overseeing the purported loan consummation to insure that the consummation was legal, proper, and that Plaintiff received all legally required disclosures pursuant to the Truth-In- Lending Act and RESPA both before and after the closing. 42.Plaintiff, not being in the consumer lending, mortgage broker, or residential loan business, reasonably relied upon the Defendants to insure that the consumer credit transaction was legal, proper, and complied with all applicable laws, rules, and Regulations. 43.At all times relevant hereto, Defendants regularly extended or offered to extend consumer credit for which a finance charge is or may be imposed or which, by written agreement, is payable in more than four (4) installments and was initially payable to the person the subject of the transaction, rendering Defendants "creditors" within the meaning of the Truth-In-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. sec. 1602(f) and Regulation Z sec. 226.2 (a)(17). 44.At the closing of the subject "loan transaction", Plaintiff executed Promissory Notes and Security Agreements in favor of Defendants as aforesaid. These transactions, designated by Defendants as a Loan, extended consumer credit which was subject to a finance charge and which was initially payable to the Defendants. 45.As part of the consumer credit transaction the subject of the closing, Defendants retained a security interest in the subject property which was Plaintiff' principal residential dwelling. 46.Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of defrauding Plaintiff in that, during the entire life of the mortgage loan, Defendants failed to properly credit payments made; incorrectly calculated interest on the accounts; and have failed to accurately debit fees. At all times material, 47.Defendants had actual knowledge that the Plaintiff' accounts were not accurate but that Plaintiff would make further payments based on Defendants' inaccurate accounts. 48.Plaintiff made payments based on the improper, inaccurate, and fraudulent representations as to Plaintiff' accounts. 49.As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants set forth above, Plaintiff overpaid in interest. 50.Defendants also utilized amounts known to the Defendants to be inaccurate to determine the amount allegedly due and owing for purposes of foreclosure. 51.Defendants' violations were all material in nature under the Truth-In-Lending Act. 52.Said violations, in addition to the fact that Plaintiff did not properly receive Notices of Right to Cancel, constitute violations of 15 USC sec. 1635(a) and (b) and 12 CFR sec. 226.23(b), and are thus a legal basis for and legally extend Plaintiff' right to exercise the remedy of rescission. 53.Defendants assigned or attempted to assign the Note and mortgage to parties who did not take these instruments in good faith or without notice that the instruments were invalid or that Plaintiff had a claim in recoupment. Pursuant to ORC sec. 1303.32(A)(2)(b)(c) and (f), Defendants are not a holder indue course and is thus liable to Plaintiff, individually, jointly and severally. 54. On information and belief and given that the consumer credit transaction was an inter- temporal transaction with multiple assignments as part of an aggregation and the creation of a REMIC tranche itself a part of a predetermined and identifiable CMO, all Defendants shared in the illegal proceeds of the transaction; conspired with each other to defraud the Plaintiff out of the proceeds of the loan; acted in concert to wrongfully deprive the Plaintiff of their residence; acted in concert and conspiracy to essentially steal the Plaintiff' home and/or convert the Plaintiff' home without providing Plaintiff reasonably equivalent value in exchange; and conducted an illegal enterprise within the meaning of the RICO statute. 55. On information and belief and given the volume of residential loan transactions solicited and processed by the Defendants, the Defendants have engaged in two or more instances of racketeering activity involving different victims but utilizing the same method, means, mode, operation, and enterprise with the same intended result. Claims for Relief COUNT I: VIOLATIONS OF HOME OWNERSHIP EQUITY PROTECTION ACT 56. Plaintiff reaffirm and reallege the above paragraphs 1-52 hereinabove as if set forth more fully hereinbelow. 57. In 1994, Congress enacted the Home Ownership Equity Protection Act ("HOEPA") which is codified at 15 USC sec. 1639 et seq. with the intention of protecting homeowners from predatory lending practices targeted at vulnerable consumers. HOEPA requires lenders to make certain defined disclosures and prohibits certain terms from being included in home loans. In the event of noncompliance, HOEPA imposes civil liability for rescission and statutory and actual damages. 58. Plaintiff are "consumers" and each Defendant is a "creditor" as defined by HOEPA. In the mortgage loan transaction at issue here, Plaintiff were required to pay excessive fees, expenses, and costs which exceeded more than 10% of the amount financed. 59. Pursuant to HOEPA and specifically 15 USC sec. 1639(a)(1), each Defendant is required to make certain disclosures to the Plaintiff which are to be made conspicuously and in writing no later than three (3) days prior to the closing. 60. In the transaction at issue, Defendants were required to make the following disclosure to Plaintiff by no later than three (3) days prior to said closing: 60.1. "You are not required to complete this agreement merely because you have received these disclosures or have signed a loan application. If you obtain this loan, the lender will have a mortgage on your home. You could lose your home and any money you have put into it, if you do not meet your obligation under the loan." 61.Defendants violated HOEPA by numerous acts and material omissions, including but not limited to: 61.1. (a) failing to make the foregoing disclosure in a conspicuous fashion; 61.2. (b) engaging in a pattern and practice of extending credit to Plaintiff without regard to their ability to repay in violation of 15 USC sec. 1639(h). 62.By virtue of the Defendants' multiple violations of HOEPA, Plaintiff have a legal right to rescind the consumer credit transaction the subject of this action pursuant to 15 USC sec. 1635. This Complaint is to be construed, for these purposes, as formal and public notice of Plaintiff's Notice of Rescission of the mortgage and note. 63.Defendants further violated HOEPA by failing to make additional disclosures, including but not limited to Plaintiff not receiving the required disclosure of the right to rescind the transaction; 64. the failure of Defendants to provide an accurate TIL disclosure; and the amount financed being understated. 65.As a direct consequence of and in connection with Plaintiff' legal and lawful exercise of their right of rescission, the true "lender" is required, within twenty (20) days of this Notice of Rescission, to: 65.1. (a) desist from making any claims for finance charges in the transaction; 65.2. (b) return all monies paid by Plaintiff in connection with the transaction to the Plaintiff; 65.3. (c) satisfy all security interests, including mortgages, which were acquired in the transaction. 66.Upon the true "lenders" full performance of its obligations under HOEPA, Plaintiff shall tender all sums to which the true lender is entitled. 67. Based on Defendants' HOEPA violations, each of the Defendants is liable to the Plaintiff for the following, which Plaintiff demand as relief: 67.1. (a) rescission of the mortgage loan transactions; 67.2. (b) termination of the mortgage and security interest in the property the subject of the mortgage loan documents created in the transaction; 67.3. (c) return of any money or property paid by the Plaintiff including all payments made in connection with the transactions; 67.4. (d) an amount of money equal to twice the finance charge in connection with the transactions; 67.5. (e) relinquishment of the right to retain any proceeds; and 67.6. (f) actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial, including 67.7. attorneys' fees. COUNT II: VIOLATIONS OF REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES ACT 68. Plaintiff reaffirm and reallege paragraphs 1-52 above herein as if specifically set forth more fully hereinbelow. 69. As mortgage lenders, Defendants are subject to the provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 USC sec. 2601 et seq. 70. In violation of 12 USC sec. 2607 and in connection with the mortgage loan to Plaintiff, Defendants accepted charges for the rendering of real estate services which were in fact charges for other than services actually performed. 71. As a result of the Defendants' violations of RESPA, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff in an amount equal to three (3) times the amount of charges paid by Plaintiff for "settlement services" pursuant to 12 USC sec. 2607 (d)(2). COUNT III: VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL TRUTH-IN-LENDING ACT 72. Plaintiff reaffirm and realleges paragraphs 1-52 above hereinabove as if set forth more fully herein below. 73. Defendants failed to include and disclose certain charges in the finance charge shown on the TIL statement, which charges were imposed on Plaintiff incident to the extension of credit to the Plaintiff and were required to be disclosed pursuant to 15 USC sec. 1605 and Regulation Z 74. sec. 226.4, thus resulting in an improper disclosure of finance charges in violation of 15 USC sec. 1601 et seq., Regulation Z sec. 226.18(d). Such undisclosed charges include a sum dentified on the Settlement Statement listing the amount financed which is different from the sum listed on the original Note. 75. By calculating the annual percentage rate ("APR") based upon improperly calculated and disclosed amounts, Defendants are in violation of 15 USC sec. 1601 et seq., Regulation Z sec. 226.18(c), 18(d), and 22. 76. Defendants' failure to provide the required disclosures provides Plaintiff with the right to rescind the transaction, and Plaintiff, through this public Complaint which is intended to be construed, for purposes of this claim, as a formal Notice of Rescission, hereby elect to rescind the transaction. COUNT IV: VIOLATION OF FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT 77. Plaintiff reaffirm and reallege paragraphs 1-52 above as if set forth more fully hereinbelow. 78. At all times material, Defendants qualified as a provider of information to the Credit Reporting Agencies, including but not limited to Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion, under the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. 65. Defendants wrongfully, improperly, and illegally reported negative information as to the Plaintiff to one or more Credit Reporting Agencies, resulting in Plaintiff having negative information on their credit reports and the lowering of their FICO scores. 78.1. The negative information included but was not limited to an excessive amount of debt into which Plaintiff was tricked and deceived into signing. 78.2. Notwithstanding the above, Plaintiff has paid each and every payment on time from the time of the loan closing through the present. 79.Pursuant to 15 USC sec. 1681(s)(2)(b), Plaintiff are entitled to maintain a private cause of action against Defendants for an award of damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial for all violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act which caused actual damages to Plaintiff, including emotional distress and humiliation. 80.Plaintiff are entitled to recover damages from Defendants for negligent non-compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act pursuant to 15 USC sec. 1681(o). 81.Plaintiff are also entitled to an award of punitive damages against Defendants for their willful noncompliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act pursuant to 15 USC sec. 1681(n)(a)(2) in an amount to be proven at time of trial. COUNT VII: FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION 82.Plaintiff reaffirm and reallege paragraphs 1-52 above as if set forth more fully hereinbelow. 83.Defendants knowingly and intentionally concealed material information from Plaintiff which is required by Federal Statutes and Regulations to be disclosed to the Plaintiff both before and at the closing. 84.Defendants also materially misrepresented material information to the Plaintiff with full knowledge by Defendants that their affirmative representations were false, fraudulent, and misrepresented the truth at the time said representations were made. 85.Under the circumstances, the material omissions and material misrepresentations of the Defendants were malicious. 86.Plaintiff, not being an investment banker, securities dealer, mortgage lender, mortgage broker, or mortgage lender, reasonably relied upon the representations of the Defendants in agreeing to execute the mortgage loan documents. 87.Had Plaintiff known of the falsity of Defendants' representations, Plaintiff would not have entered into the transactions the subject of this action. 88.As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendants' material omissions and material misrepresentations, Plaintiff have suffered damages. COUNT VIII: BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 89. Plaintiff reaffirm and reallege paragraphs 1-52 above as if set forth more fully hereinbelow. 90. Defendants, by their actions in contracting to provide mortgage loan services and a loan program to Plaintiff which was not only to be best suited to the Plaintiff given their income and expenses but by which Plaintiff would also be able to satisfy their obligations without risk of losing their home, were "fiduciaries" in which Plaintiff reposed trust and confidence, especially given that Plaintiff were not and are not investment bankers, securities dealers, mortgage lenders, mortgage brokers, or mortgage lenders. 91. Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Plaintiff by fraudulently inducing Plaintiff to enter into a mortgage transaction which was contrary to the Plaintiff's stated intentions; contrary to the Plaintiff's interests; and contrary to the Plaintiff's preservation of their home 92. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties, Plaintiff have suffered damages. 93. Under the totality of the circumstances, the Defendants' actions were willful, wanton, intentional, and with a callous and reckless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff justifying an award of not only actual compensatory but also exemplary punitive damages to serve as a deterrent not only as to future conduct of the named Defendants herein, but also to other persons or entities with similar inclinations. COUNT IX: UNJUST ENRICHMENT 94. Plaintiff reallege and reaffirm paragraphs 1-52 above as if set forth more fully hereinbelow. 95. Defendants had an implied contract with the Plaintiff to ensure that Plaintiff understood all fees which would be paid to the Defendants to obtain credit on Plaintiff' behalf and to not charge any fees which were not related to the settlement of the loan and without fulldisclosure to Plaintiff. 96.Defendants cannot, in good conscience and equity, retain the benefits from their actions ofcharging a higher interest rate, fees. rebates, kickbacks, profits (including but not limited tofrom resale of mortgages and notes using Plaintiff's identity, credit score and reputationwithout consent, right, justification or excuse as part of an illegal enterprise scheme) andgains and YSP fee unrelated to the settlement services provided at closing. 97. Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Plaintiff, and maintenance of the enrichment would be contrary to the rules and principles of equity. 97.1. Defendants have also been additionally enriched through the receipt of PAYMENT from third parties including but not limited to investors, insurers, and other borrowers, the United States Department of the Treasury, the United States Federal Reserve, and Bank of America, N.A. 98. Plaintiff thus demands restitution from the Defendants in the form of actual damages, exemplary damages, and attorneys' fees. COUNT X: CIVIL CONSPIRACY 99.Plaintiff reaffirm and reallege paragraphs 1-52 above as if set forth more fully hereinbelow. 100.In connection with the application for and consummation of the mortgage loan the subject of this action, Defendants agreed, between and among themselves, to engage in actions and a course of conduct designed to further an illegal act or accomplish a legal act by unlawful means, and to commit one or more overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud the Plaintiff. 101.Defendants agreed between and among themselves to engage in the conspiracy to defraudfor the common purpose of accruing economic gains for themselves at the expense of anddetriment to the Plaintiff. 102. The actions of the Defendants were committed intentionally, willfully, wantonly, and withreckless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff. 103. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants in combination resulting infraud and breaches of fiduciary duties, Plaintiff have suffered damages. 104. Plaintiff thus demand an award of actual, compensatory, and punitive damages. COUNT XI: CIVIL RICO 105.Plaintiff reaffirm and reallege paragraphs 1-52 above as set forth more fully hereinbelow. 106.Defendants are "persons" as defined by ORC sec. 2923.31(G). 107.The conspiracy the subject of this action has existed from date of application to the present, with the injuries and damages resulting therefrom being continuing. 108.Defendants' actions and use of multiple corporate entities, multiple parties, and concerted and predetermined acts and conduct specifically designed to defraud Plaintiff constitutes an"enterprise", with the aim and objective of the enterprise being to perpetrate a fraud upon thePlaintiff through the use of intentional nondisclosure, material misrepresentation, andcreation of fraudulent loan documents. 109.Each of the Defendants is an "enterprise Defendant". 110.As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants, Plaintiff have and continue to suffer damages. COMPLAINT TO QUIET TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY 111. Plaintiff reaffirm and reallege paragraphs 1-52 above as set forth more fully hereinbelow. 112. Plaintiff has sent or has caused to be sent authorized Qualified Written Requests to the only known Defendants which the said Defendants have failed and refused to answer despite acknowledging receipt thereof and despite demands from counsel, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as specifically as if set forth at length hereat. 113. Plaintiff has sent or has caused to be sent notice of her intent to rescind the subject loan transaction but has only sent those notices to the only entities that have been disclosed. Hence, without this action, neither the rescission nor the reconveyance which the Plaintiff is entitled to file (as attorney in fact for the originating lender) and will file contemporaneously with this complaint, gives Plaintiff full and clear title to the property. 114.The real party in interest on the lender side may be the owner of the asset backed security issued by the SPV, the insurer through some claim of equitable interest, or the Federal government through the United States Department of the Treasury or the Federal Reserve. The security is a "securitized" bond deriving its value from the underlying mortgages of which the subject mortgage is one. Thus Plaintiff is entitled to quiet title against Defendants, clearing title of the purported subject mortgage encumbrance. 115. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as DOES inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. 116. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times herein mentioned,each of the defendants sued herein was the agent and employee of each of the remainingdefendants and was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of such agency and employment. 117. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that and each of the Defendantsclaim or might claim an interest in the property adverse to plaintiff herein. However, the claim of said Defendants is without any right whatsoever, and said Defendant have no legal or equitable right, claim, or interest in said property. 118. Plaintiff therefore seeks a declaration that the title to the subject property is vested in plaintiff alone and that the defendants herein, and each of them, be declared to have no estate,right, title or interest in the subject property and that said defendants and each of them, beforever enjoined from asserting any estate, right, title or interest in the subject property adverse to plaintiff herein. 119. WHEREFORE, in this Count, plaintiff prays this Court will enter judgment against defendants and each of them, as follows: 119.1. For an order compelling said Defendant, and each of them, to transfer or release legal title and alleged encumbrances thereon and possession of the subject property to Plaintiff herein; 119.2. For a declaration and determination that Plaintiff is the rightful holder of title to the property and that Defendant herein, and each of them, be declared to have no estate, right, title or interest in said property; 119.3. For a judgment forever enjoining said defendants, and each of them, from claiming any estate, right, title or interest in the subject property; 119.4. For costs of suit herein incurred; 119.5. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper USURY and FRAUD 119.6. Plaintiff reaffirm and reallege the above paragraphs 1-52 hereinabove as if set forthmore fully hereinbelow. The subject loan, note, and mortgage was structured so as tocreate the appearance of a higher value of the real property than the actual fair market value. 119.7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times herein mentioned, each of the defendants sued herein was the agent and employee of each of the remaining defendants and was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of such agency and employment.119.8. Defendants disguised the transaction to create the appearance of the lender being a properly chartered and registered financial institution authorized to do business and to enter into the subject transaction when in fact the real party in interest was not disclosed to Plaintiff, as aforesaid, and neither were the various fees, rebates, refunds, kickbacks, profits and gains of the various parties who participated in this unlawful scheme. 119.9.Said real party in interest, i.e., the source of funding for the loan and the person to whom the note was transmitted or eventually "assigned" was neither a financial institution nor an entity or person authorized, chartered or registered to do business in this State nor to act as banking, lending or other financial institution anywhere else. 119.10. As such, this fraudulent scheme, (which was in actuality a plan to trick the Plaintiffinto signing what would become a negotiable security used to sell unregulatedsecurities under fraudulent and changed terms from the original note) was in fact asham to use Plaintiff's interest in the real property to collect interest in excess of thelegal rate. 119.11. The transaction involved a loan of money pursuant to a written agreement, and assuch, subject to the rate limitation set forth under state and federal law. The "formula rate" referenced in those laws was exceeded by a factor in excess of 10 contrary to the applicable law and contrary to the requirements for disclosure under TILA and HOEPA. 119.12. Under Applicable law, the interest charged on this usurious mortgage prevents any collection or enforcement of principal or interest of the note, voids any security interest thereon, and entitles the Plaintiff to recovery of all money or value paid to Defendants, plus treble damages, interest, and attorney fees. 119.13. Under Applicable Law Plaintiff are also entitled and demand a permanent injunction be entered against the Defendants (a) preventing them from taking any action or making any report in furtherance of collection on this alleged debt which was usurious, as aforesaid (b) requiring the records custodian of the county in which the alleged mortgage and other instruments are recorded to remove same from the record, (c) allowing the filing of said order in the office of the clerk of the property records where the subject property, "Loan transaction" and any other documents relating to this transaction are located and (d) dissolving any lis pendens or notice of pendency relating to the Defendants purported claim. RELIEF SOUGHT WHEREFORE, having set forth numerous legally sufficient causes of actions against the Defendants, Plaintiff pray for the entry of Final Judgment against all Defendants jointly and severally in an amount not yet quantified but to be proven at trial and such other amounts to be proven at trial, and for costs and attorneys' fees; that the Court find that the ransactions thesubject of this action are illegal and are deemed void; that the foreclosure which was instituted be deemed and declared illegal and void and that further proceedings in connection with the foreclosure be enjoined; and for any other and further relief which is just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff demand trial by jury of all matters so triable as a matter of right. Respectfully submitted, _____________________________ Plaintiff _____________________________ ATTORNEY NAME BAR NUMBER Pro Hac Vice, Counsel to Plaintiff ATTORNEY ADDRESS PHONE Fax: VERIFICATION I, am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoingand know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed at Phoenix, Arizona. **Only a licensed attorney can represent your rights - Call your local state bar - This site is informational only ** Not licensed to practice law.

Lenders who Lied about Loan Modification Programs

Avoid Foreclosure and Bankruptcy Blog » Lenders who Lied about ...

Jun 23, 2010 ... The attorney will be able to cut through the lender lies and review the true financial status of the borrower in order to paint

THIS IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE!!

By filing a response, you tell the court that you contest the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint and force the plaintiff to prove their case in order to win.

If you don’t file a timely response, the plaintiff can petition the court for a “default judgment” and possibly win the lawsuit simply because you failed to respond.

First call an Attorney Immediately. An attorney experienced in defending against the type of lawsuit you’ve been served with will undoubtedly be the best tool in your defense toolbox.

Lawyers are knowledgeable about the procedures involved in lawsuits and skilled at making persuasive arguments to a judge or a jury in your defense. An attorney can also help you try to settle the case out of court as an alternative.This blog only describes situational circumstances and no witness can offer legal advice. M.Soliman is an "expert witness" and not an attorney nor affiliated under a licensed prationer.

This web site does NOT advocate nor believe that modifications exist and will not be involvved in any modificiation or other short sale settlement offers.

Consult an attorney first for your specific problem. NO attorney-client relationship exists.