Bagels at a Bar mitzvah Part II

M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Here is the argument that you have to meet Article III requirement (injury in fact ) to file a claim in the Federal courts (including bankruptcy courts). The same argument that is ignored in favor of the note holder status to foreclose in the state courts. I expect an objection to my chapter 13 plan from the pretender-lender, and I will use this case to response:

" To object to the confirmation of a reorganization plan in bankruptcy court, a party must, in the first instance, meet the requirements for standing that litigants in all federal cases face under Article III of the Constitution "

 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
moretrouble said:
They used the ABC trust to make it appeared legal to foreclose, paid off the balance in the ABC trust then resecuritized into XYZ, or XYZ just a recovery trust from one of the investors.
In my case my original loan is still in RAAC 2005-RP3, been paid down by excess cash flow. However, my account on the phantom debt serviced by Bank of America is actually for the benefit of NewRez recovery trust with US Bank as trustee. My case is easy to discover because I have access to Bloomberg and RAAC is not called yet.
Click to expand...
I think the discrepency is related to the divergent accounting scheme where there are two distinct accounts. Each one benefits from the balance of the account. The servicer seeks a high account balance (as a debt collector) and the trustee seeks a lower account balance (to reduce payouts to investors). Both have their benefits to the benefactor of the alleged account. Definitely divergent interests. That's why you have so many different account balances. So pick the one that suits you. It's what they do.

How can they really state a claim where they keep contradicting?
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
I thought this was relevant in that yes, you can create a shipping label and not send it. So generating a tracking number or certified mail reference number is not going to prove anything as far as actual delivery.
 

Attachments

M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
This is from the offering prospectus of one of the RFC-sponsored trusts (look up Residential mortgage asset products for company name in SEC Edgar site):

"

OPTIONAL TERMINATION


On any distribution date on which the aggregate outstanding principal balance of the mortgage loans after applications of principal are received for such distribution date is less than 10% of their aggregate principal balance as of the cut-off date, after deducting payments due during the month of the cut-off date, the master servicer may, but will not be required to:


o purchase from the trust all of the remaining mortgage loans and cause an


early retirement of the certificates;


or


o purchase all of the certificates.


An optional purchase of the certificates will cause the outstanding principal balance of the applicable certificates to be paid in full with accrued interest.

So NewRez (bought master servicing rights from Ocwen) can exercise call rights and buy all of the loans or it can buy all off the outstanding certificates and instruct Ocwen to initiate foreclosures while collecting 7.5% due to the higher rates.
 
M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
So NewRez (bought master servicing rights from Ocwen) can exercise call rights and buy all of the loans or it can buy all off the outstanding certificates and instruct Ocwen to initiate foreclosures while collecting 7.5% due to the higher rates. NewRez makes insane profit by buying the loans from the trusts at paid-down (amortized, in my case $170K) balances and foreclose at the declared default balance: balance at default + interests+ fees (my case $680K).
 
M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
same prospectus:
"

A subservicer may allow the refinancing of a mortgage loan by accepting prepayments thereon and permitting a new loan secured by a mortgage on the same property. In the event of such a refinancing, the new loan would not be included in the trust fund and, therefore, the refinancing would have the same effect as a prepayment in full of the related mortgage loan. A subservicer or the master servicer will, from time to time, implement programs designed to encourage refinancing. These programs may include, without limitation, modifications of existing loans, targeted solicitations, the offering of pre-approved applications, reduced origination fees or closing costs, or other financial incentives. Targeted solicitations may be based on a variety of factors, including the credit of the borrower or the location of the mortgaged property. In addition, subservicers or the master servicer may encourage the refinancing of mortgage loans, including defaulted mortgage loans, that would permit creditworthy borrowers to assume the outstanding indebtedness of these mortgage loans."

So loan mods are not included in the same trust, normally re-securitized into new trust.
 
J

Javagold

LoanSafe Member
The Homeowners need to have The Right to purchase their own lien at the paid down amortized balance.

This is the Answer to all the House of Cards Ponzi !!!!
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
I'm a little confused on how exactly a servicer or subservicer "may" start acting like a lender with programs encouraging refinance, payoffs, mods, etc. AND with the ability to create and remove said loans from the alleged trusts and trust pools.

Seems that this authority can not or should not be transferred by a mere declaration. This sounds questionably legal. Since when are servicers lenders?
 
M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Survivor_IN said:
I'm a little confused on how exactly a servicer or subservicer "may" start acting like a lender with programs encouraging refinance, payoffs, mods, etc. AND with the ability to create and remove said loans from the alleged trusts and trust pools.

Seems that this authority can not or should not be transferred by a mere declaration. This sounds questionably legal. Since when are servicers lenders?
Click to expand...
That exactly how they want it to be be - confusion- to the homeowners, the judges. The master -servicer and the sub-servicer are just debt collectors (Ocwen and Bank of America in my case), acting on behalf of the whole-class bond holder (NewRez holding M-classes in RAAC trusts in my case). The recovery trust (NRZ recovery trusts with US Bank as trustee) is just that, to track defaulted loans and recover money collected. There was no transaction, no sale, no asset transferred, just a list. The sub-servicer fabricated the note, testified there was a loan with the inflated balance (principle at default + accrued interests and fees) in the original trust (not the recovery trust), got the judgment, sell your house for $680K, then buy back the original from the original trust at $170K (your defaulted loan has always been in the trust, never removed per PSA). Half a million dollar profit from $850 (eight hundreds and fifty dollars) investment in servicing right. No wonder why they got so rich without doing anything of value.
 
M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
The option to purchase the original loan is spelled out in the PSA. However, they breach the PSA by NOT buying back the original loan after the 90 days default. Unlike law suits from institutional investors and bond funds back in 2016, there is no law suit now because, the remaining subordinate bond are owned by the whole class bond investors (Rithym Corp, NewRez) who benefits from the scam. The original loans have been paid down using servicing advances (funded by pre-payments of current loans, interest rate spread, and paid-down balances of the original when removed from original trusts).
 
M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Above case at diff website:
law.justia.com

HSBC Bank v. Blendheim, No. 13-35354 (9th Cir. 2015)

Debtors are "Chapter 20 debtors" who filed for Chapter 7 and then Chapter 13 relief. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court properly voided HSBC’s lien under section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, confirmed debtors' Chapter 13 plan offering permanent voidance of HSBC’s lien upon...
law.justia.com law.justia.com
 
R

razmik

LoanSafe Member
isisis said:
Unfortunately, the SOL on a DOT in California is ten or thirty years depending on a technicality having to do with the language in the recorded deed. Weird, huh? But it used to be the SOL never ran on a DOT. Hmmm maybe I should check that out again. When I first looked into it ten years seemed like forever and now it's years ago.

Still, if the creditor has continued to actively pursue the debt doesn't that prevent the running of the SOL?
Click to expand...
What SOL on a DOT in California mean. Please explain
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top