Bagels at a Bar mitzvah Part II

R

razmik

LoanSafe Member
Javagold said:
A Deutsche Bank spokesperson said the bank acted solely as a trustee on the residential mortgage-backed security (RMBS) and was not involved in day-to-day servicing.
“Loan-level matters, including foreclosure actions and subsequent purchases or sales of properties, are handled exclusively by mortgage loan servicers,” the Deutsche spokesperson said.

A representative for Bank of New York Mellon made a similar statement, claiming it held no responsibility for the foreclosure process…….
Click to expand...
Can you please tell me where Deutsche Bank spokesperson said this statement. The place and date or which case,,,Thank you in advance.
 
R

razmik

LoanSafe Member
moretrouble said:
Why don't you ask Mr. crooked Cooper for the trust's mortgage loan schedule that contains your loan AND history of all transactions. The trustee only deals with certificate holders. It is the servicer like NewRez, Mr. Cooper that profits from the foreclosures. Read my appellate brief. You win by discovery in court and follow the court rules.
Click to expand...
I asked them many times and they telling me Deutsche Bank is the owner/investor/holder/trustee and...I sent them mortgage loan schedule which shows everything, who transfer to whom and all the ones said...for value received such and such is the new one and stuff but they keep telling me the same. We are in litigation with them now. They say I am not qualified to do a loan mod based on Deutsche Bank the owner and investor guidelines but we all know they don't have any guideline. They amortize over 14 or 15 years with 7 percent interest rate to bring my payments and all to about $14,000 a month!!! and say I am not qualified!!!
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
razmik said:
I asked them many times and they telling me Deutsche Bank is the owner/investor/holder/trustee and...I sent them mortgage loan schedule which shows everything, who transfer to whom and all the ones said...for value received such and such is the new one and stuff but they keep telling me the same. We are in litigation with them now. They say I am not qualified to do a loan mod based on Deutsche Bank the owner and investor guidelines but we all know they don't have any guideline. They amortize over 14 or 15 years with 7 percent interest rate to bring my payments and all to about $14,000 a month!!! and say I am not qualified!!!
Click to expand...
I'm reminded of an argument that lenders started using to avoid the robosigning scandal back in the day. "YOU are no a party to the contract" and therefore have "no standing to complain." All of this keeps anything they have or will do under veil of secrecy. Personally, I think DB simply does not care who, what, how or why. If they have a servicing agent wrongfully foreclose, then they settle for cash after the fact. Meanwhile, you still lose property. It is sorta like the old theory on getting paid twice. This is not equitable system to have a mechanism for third parties to do what they want and funnel loans north east west and south.

They tie you up indefinitely because you have no verifiable facts. I suspect they do not have supporting facts either but their strength is in non-disclosure. The BS "investor guidelines" are a means to say, these mysterious side contracts control us and we have rights that don't involve you. After borrowing a spade and some digging into other's gardens, everyone finds mud below the surface and gets stuck.

MT argument points to many of these things such as duplicate this and duplicate that and second set of books and I would even say maybe a third or 4th set. It's all filed under "transferred for value." Of course, servicing is creating THIS set of books which is separate from THAT
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
The servicer indemnifies the "lender" against any of these losses. This is why "investors" don't need to intervene. If they catch unlawful (per se, as in against the contract) actions by servicing agents, they can recoup outside of litigation. I think the biggest scam in these loans was to insert language making borrower responsibile for legal costs on enforcing the note or mortgage. These did not previously exist, which made "ordinary banks" (outside of these trusts), view foreclosure as costly. It is my opinion that this one thing, a provision for legal costs, accelerated the rush to foreclose, as liability for expenses were transferred. In the old days, this was dependant on win or lose and jurisdictional allowances. These third parties are inside your contract seeking rights between you and someone else.
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
The presentation of an original POA is specious. A dated POA is subject to intervening amendments and recissions which are left undocumented. Do not fall for incomplete claims and half truths trying to recreate legal authority to match the argument given. It is simply BS that lenders don't allow modifications. The POAs where updated with these permissions to overcome the obstacles contained in the initial boilerplate language, filed or not. as a matter of public record.
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
QUIET TITLE DOT AND SOL (ON NOTE) IN AZ

For those enduring DOT 2nd liens with cough, near lifetime statute of limitations ... This is good news! Statutory rights overcome common law in court.

www.mpamag.com

Arizona Supreme Court: expired mortgage debt can't block lien removal

A new Arizona Supreme Court ruling says homeowners may remove mortgage liens tied to unpaid debt - if the statute of limitations has expired
www.mpamag.com www.mpamag.com
 
M

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Survivor_IN said:
QUIET TITLE DOT AND SOL (ON NOTE) IN AZ

For those enduring DOT 2nd liens with cough, near lifetime statute of limitations ... This is good news! Statutory rights overcome common law in court.

www.mpamag.com

Arizona Supreme Court: expired mortgage debt can't block lien removal

A new Arizona Supreme Court ruling says homeowners may remove mortgage liens tied to unpaid debt - if the statute of limitations has expired
www.mpamag.com www.mpamag.com
Click to expand...
Awesome news, there’ll be more quiet title actions in the future. I don’t see why the ruling does not apply to first mortgage and liens. By the way, bank of New York and the law firm in my foreclosure case did not file the response brief in my appeal of the foreclosure before the deadline. Waiting for the appellate ruling.
 
C

cookiemom

LoanSafe Member
Survivor_IN said:
QUIET TITLE DOT AND SOL (ON NOTE) IN AZ

For those enduring DOT 2nd liens with cough, near lifetime statute of limitations ... This is good news! Statutory rights overcome common law in court.

www.mpamag.com

Arizona Supreme Court: expired mortgage debt can't block lien removal

A new Arizona Supreme Court ruling says homeowners may remove mortgage liens tied to unpaid debt - if the statute of limitations has expired
www.mpamag.com www.mpamag.com
Click to expand...
Fingers crossed for michigan to jump on the bandwagon....
 
OneHugeMess

OneHugeMess

LoanSafe Member
razmik said:
I asked them many times and they telling me Deutsche Bank is the owner/investor/holder/trustee and...I sent them mortgage loan schedule which shows everything, who transfer to whom and all the ones said...for value received such and such is the new one and stuff but they keep telling me the same. We are in litigation with them now. They say I am not qualified to do a loan mod based on Deutsche Bank the owner and investor guidelines but we all know they don't have any guideline. They amortize over 14 or 15 years with 7 percent interest rate to bring my payments and all to about $14,000 a month!!! and say I am not qualified!!!
Click to expand...
At some point, you realize that fighting them just isn't going to lead to anything reasonable. You're only stalling the inevitable. That’s why I accepted modifications on three houses and reached a settlement with Bank of America on another. I don’t regret any of my loan modifications—I've been able to rent out the properties for more than the mortgage payments, and they've all appreciated significantly since I signed the agreements. My interest rates are 2%, 2.5%, and 3% on those properties.


As for the settlement—which I’m not allowed to discuss in due to a gag order from the bank—they admitted to wrongdoing related to Truth in Lending Act violations. I had a PayOption Hybrid Mortgage, and the loan disclosures were essentially fraudulent. The originating bank (Countrywide) should never have purchased the loan, nor should they have resold it. One key factor in my favor was that I raised Truth in Lending Act violation claims in 2009, while the loan was originated in 2006, giving me legal grounds to pursue relief.


I received an incredibly generous settlement and was essentially not required to pay much—other than a junior second mortgage I also owed to the bank.


Under Florida state law and with my attorney’s guidance, I was only required to pay six years of interest on that second mortgage. It was a HELOC that had already been charged off. Bank of America was also servicing the second mortgage. In hindsight, I probably could have pushed for more of the interest to be written off since I wasn’t receiving periodic statements—but I didn’t realize that at the time.


If I were in your position, I would seriously consider a loan modification or selling your house if you have any equity. A modified loan could give you a lower interest rate and prevent you from drowning in accrued interest.


It’s your decision, of course, but I’m glad to hear you’re still in your home. Given that you’re in a non-judicial state, that’s impressive.
 
K

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
OneHugeMess said:
At some point, you realize that fighting them just isn't going to lead to anything reasonable. You're only stalling the inevitable. That’s why I accepted modifications on three houses and reached a settlement with Bank of America on another. I don’t regret any of my loan modifications—I've been able to rent out the properties for more than the mortgage payments, and they've all appreciated significantly since I signed the agreements. My interest rates are 2%, 2.5%, and 3% on those properties.


As for the settlement—which I’m not allowed to discuss in due to a gag order from the bank—they admitted to wrongdoing related to Truth in Lending Act violations. I had a PayOption Hybrid Mortgage, and the loan disclosures were essentially fraudulent. The originating bank (Countrywide) should never have purchased the loan, nor should they have resold it. One key factor in my favor was that I raised Truth in Lending Act violation claims in 2009, while the loan was originated in 2006, giving me legal grounds to pursue relief.


I received an incredibly generous settlement and was essentially not required to pay much—other than a junior second mortgage I also owed to the bank.


Under Florida state law and with my attorney’s guidance, I was only required to pay six years of interest on that second mortgage. It was a HELOC that had already been charged off. Bank of America was also servicing the second mortgage. In hindsight, I probably could have pushed for more of the interest to be written off since I wasn’t receiving periodic statements—but I didn’t realize that at the time.


If I were in your position, I would seriously consider a loan modification or selling your house if you have any equity. A modified loan could give you a lower interest rate and prevent you from drowning in accrued interest.


It’s your decision, of course, but I’m glad to hear you’re still in your home. Given that you’re in a non-judicial state, that’s impressive.
Click to expand...
PLEASE message me ASAP, I tried to message you but you have your profile limited. VERY important.....
 
K

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Well, I need to wait to let the whole cat out of the whole bag, lol, but I have news, and will post it as soon as I'm able. Some rather interesting details on this bit of news....and a rare twist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top