Bagels at a Bar Mitzvah

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,887
617
113
NJ
Found an interesting remedy though called Set Off, some states use Offset, same concept. It can be used in judicial or non judicial foreclosure if there are cross claims that offset the alleged debt. Here's a short and simple California Supreme Court case.


The lender owed the borrower a amount equal to the indebtedness under the note and the sale was overturned. What was owed wasn't damages but no reason it couldn't be. I figure the damages done to me by inducing default and preventing performance, loan charges imposed, preventing me from finding affordable terms by refinancing, legal and court fees, damaged credit, lost earnings etc., would offset nearly all my arrears. Still, I've learned enough about the legal system and its inability to provide equitable relief for what they perceive as "dead beat" homeowners to be too hopeful.
This is what I get when I google your prop:

HOT Deal Alert: This property deal has a high potential return. Make sure you strike while it's HOT so you don't miss your chance at a high potential ROI. The potential return is based on the estimated resale value and estimated credit bid for the property, and doesn't consider any repair, legal or transaction costs due to the current condition of the property.

Please let me know you're OK. I know it's sickening. I have been sick for so long I can't even count the days..
My Love & thoughts & strength are always with you, my beloved friend. We'll get through it, together. Just think about how many , on bagels alone, support & love you.
Kisses from me.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,706
221
63
North bay
How dare they disparage my home "repair", "current condition". If I want to call it a fixer upper that's my business but it's pretty rude of them to cast aspersions (whatever that means).

Sorry, I'm a little silly just now. Forgot to mention the one side effect to mock executions that's not so bad. You get a little giddy and light-headed when it's called off.
 

TXWilly

LoanSafe Member
Mar 21, 2013
761
45
28
MT: I said the same arguments in my case and InFACT I have proved them with my own Private Investigators who confirmed with the defendants's own HR system/Documents. And the cops lied to me over phone and email. And judge /lawyer corroborated to commit FRAUD on COURT. Still, other judges took side with Bank / Jamie Dimon. When I asked this to his daughter Laura Dimon who is a reporter, she blocks me in twitter.
126
127
 

TXWilly

LoanSafe Member
Mar 21, 2013
761
45
28
128

**AND LOOK AT THE HIGHLIGHTED TEXT *** > courts, politics, crime, housing--- What an Irony. Father loots/steals homes of people with Fraud. And Daughter who runs/manages/works for a foundation (not sure who donates money), and she is also a reporter who is supposed to be working/reporting on 'Courts, Politics, Crime, Housing' but does not report on his Father's crime/felonies and I have given enough proofs and willing to offer more if she is interested but instead she blocks me? Like father like....Why cannot face the truth bravely in twitter? Why running away/hiding?
 

strollingastronomer

LoanSafe Member
Apr 30, 2012
47
1
8
The lawyers for Ditech spent Christmas Eve putting together a printout of the lien transfer records, etc. and a printout of my account activity (pre 2012 had activity). No explanation. Part of me thinks, oh crap they're ramping up to foreclose, and part of me thinks they're wasting their time because after paying off the first, they won't have enough to buy lunch. I wonder if I should look at refinancing and starting over with a clean slate. This has been a long ride, but I've got time and patience to spare.
 

OneHugeMess

LoanSafe Member
May 30, 2016
511
39
28
The lawyers for Ditech spent Christmas Eve putting together a printout of the lien transfer records, etc. and a printout of my account activity (pre 2012 had activity). No explanation. Part of me thinks, oh crap they're ramping up to foreclose, and part of me thinks they're wasting their time because after paying off the first, they won't have enough to buy lunch. I wonder if I should look at refinancing and starting over with a clean slate. This has been a long ride, but I've got time and patience to spare.
Have they sent you a letter/notice yet that your account is being transferred to NewRez, or PHHOcwen? They may be preparing your loan file for the transfer change. Ditech themselves won't exist much longer, from what I've been told.

Also - just so your aware, in some states, they are allowed to foreclose on the home, subject to the first mortgage. It's not incredibly common, but, it's happening in FL right now. I guess the *long term* goal, is to collect the excess proceeds whenever the first finally foreclose on the loan.
 

strollingastronomer

LoanSafe Member
Apr 30, 2012
47
1
8
Yes, I got that notice a month or two prior... maybe just getting their ducks in a row. My first is current, so I'm good there... ironically, it is through Ocwen/PHH/NewRez (whatever else is new this week... ha).
 

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,887
617
113
NJ
Here is what I understand.

Let's pretend it's the fall of 2008, and you work at Lehman Brothers.

Lehman Brothers has about $100 Billion in short-term debt, in the form of commercial paper - that is backed by the cash reserves and assets of the bank. In the case of Lehman Brothers... those assets consist of the residuals of Mortgage-Backed Securities that couldn't be securitized and were held on the bank's books, for those ultra-safe high-risk home loans made to people like me who probably couldn't afford their loans long term.

Since the majority of the loans in the Securitization Deal of INDX, CWALT, or AHMIT are now severely delinquent, and credit support is now severely impaired or not existant, the creditors (which are other banks) no longer trust that Lehman Brothers has safe enough assets to lend on, or sale to repay the debt.

The banks either severely discount the assets on Lehman's Books, demanding a higher coupon say 9% instead of 5%, or they refuse to lend altogether. Since the Commerical Paper (REPO) is short term debt that has to be renewed, and it has already been called, the debt becomes delinquent if not renewed, and the bank will be considered "bankrupt" if it's not paid the following morning. The default triggers a liquidation event, and in the case of Lehman Brothers - a freaking meltdown due to its insolvency.

The reason things blew up so badly, is Lehman's problems were spread far & wide across Wall Street and the Globe. Their creditors in these transactions were basically every other bank on the street like Goldman, Merril Lynch, Wachovia, etc. So, a default, could make another bank insolvent, and cause a cascading domino effect.

I still wasn't a real big fan of the TARP Fund - and I still don't believe we got our money's worth out of it, but, I will tell you... from my understanding, the great depression would have looked like a minor thunder storm in comparison to what could have happened in those days. It's really terrifying when you sit back and think about it.


To sum this up - and make it very clear.

Let's pretend I run Bank of America's Investment Bank.

We have $40 Billion outstanding in REPO Debt.

$36 - Billion are One Week Bonds at 2.9%
$4 - Billion are 5 Day Bonds at 3.1%.

At the end of the maturity, the bond has to be repaid and we have to hope that we can achieve a similar interest rate, in order to repay our borrowing costs and make a net interest margin on the assets at hand. (We pay 3% on Avg to Borrow Money, but we collect 4.7% from the borrowers)

Every single week, our assets have to remain about the same quality and we need to keep our borrowing costs down. So, if suddenly the REPO markets demand 5.5%, there's a decent chance that we could hit a severe roadblock, if we have to keep paying those rates, with our assets at hand.

So, the Federal Reserve has decided to take action, and make sure the REPO market is artificially stimulated. This way, borrowing costs stay artificially low, and this side of the banking sector will operate uninterrupted.

Try as I may, I'm not sure I explained that as well as I could, but I hope it helps you understand it a bit. Banks use commercial paper because it's generally cheaper and easier to raise capital with. The only *huge* downside is, if the market loses confidence in the assets at hand, it can become impossible to refinance that debt overnight - causing a "meltdown".

This is a good article & the comments are fabulous. I thought you may want to check it out.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-feds-latest-gamble-imperils-the-whole-economy/
 
  • Like
Reactions: OneHugeMess

OneHugeMess

LoanSafe Member
May 30, 2016
511
39
28

Annie Mac

LoanSafe Member
Aug 19, 2011
572
70
28
Oregon
Isisis, the rhythm of your "sale is a week away, then a day away, and then hours away," is like the movie Groundhog Day. It just keeps repeating. So, then after the TRO, what occurs to unravel it to the next steps to get back to the period where you are sailing for awhile? It sounds like while we each have found a few tactics which work in our situation, in our state, the bottom line, is to wear us down. This looming sale game has got to have gotten old by now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: isisis

TXWilly

LoanSafe Member
Mar 21, 2013
761
45
28
Isisis, the rhythm of your "sale is a week away, then a day away, and then hours away," is like the movie Groundhog Day. It just keeps repeating. So, then after the TRO, what occurs to unravel it to the next steps to get back to the period where you are sailing for awhile? It sounds like while we each have found a few tactics which work in our situation, in our state, the bottom line, is to wear us down. This looming sale game has got to have gotten old by now.
What is shocking is no good human being in administration in LEO/Judiciary/Sheriff/County admins have any conscience to stop this CRIMES/FELONIES despite knowing that money/salary/uniform for them comes from the very people who are suffering by the crimes of those in power! I AM NOT going to give up this fight until they silence me or fix this. I guess they tried few times (once a truck bumped my car and one guy followed me to my school runs ) and one experienced lawyer warned me of this too when I started digging in the beginning.
 

just_me

LoanSafe Member
Sep 14, 2015
561
45
28
Regarding credit reports and similar data, one can subpoena older records but you must have a court case in order to obtain one. (Two out of 3 credit bureaus actually allow you to fax a subpoena fyi) Since I'm still trying to obtain records to verify certain events, I'll update once I have success. I have noticed in some discovery requests, where businesses have come and gone, they just ignore you until you come up with the current owner or holder. What am I gonna do, sue someone in Idaho that's uncooperative? Sorta like mill attorneys losing when they don't have accurate information. They come back and knock again. These requests are hit an miss to begin with if the data you seek is beyond 7 years. But I did have success on one item regarding sale data from 2006, so you never know who actually DOES have data until you try.

Also, in my state we do have offsets. I haven't put a price on the fraud yet (for an offset). Every time I get into accounting the loan with that in mind, I get harrassed with "renewed" legal filings. If you ask me, after 8 years, it's a frivolous case. I'm tired of the court sytem "helping them" extend this matter indefinitely. Also, it does appear Foreclosure Mill has a running of SOL in mind on the fraud, however, I have 15 years on the contract. This is actually funny that this now works in my favor.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,706
221
63
North bay
While fighting a trustee sale on the basis of contract law and unfair business practices I've had to backburner the intriguing info OHM found on my trust and leave it to simmer for awhile

According to the investor's report in 2010 my loan was modified, payments were made and the principal reduced until fourteen months ago. On my end in 2010 my loan was assigned to CWABS 2006 SD2 who then began foreclosure proceedings. In a judicial state that would have made the fat / lady sing on the foreclosure (at least for now) because I was not in default to the entity seeking to enforce the contract. Bofa jumped in and came to my assistance - and not only provided the proffered modification but even made the payments, all unbeknownst to me. Pretty cool of them, huh? Remember their old laughable byline, "We're here to help" maybe they accidentally meant it. They simply overlooked telling me about this development and decided to try to take my property.

The problem in a non judicial state is that I'm the plaintiff with the burden of proof and a threshold issue is damages. If I can't show the Defendant's conduct caused me harm no relief can be granted. A California judge well ask how I was harmed by the lack of this knowledge and why it would circumvent the terms of the loan.

The second problem is the issue of separate but entangled contracts , the mortgage and the PSA.

It could be argued that the modification of my mortgage was a contract to which I'm not a party, that it was an agreement that exists solely between the servicer and the trust

I'm still trying to figure out how I could use this info in my favor. One idea I had was to contract the person in charge of my trust. His name and email are available on BNYM investors website. Not exactly sure where to go from there but was thinking of tellinghim who I am and which loan in the trust I'm in. Saying that I know the loan is 14 months behind but the servicer is giving me a hard time and trying to foreclose and I'd rather pay those 14 months and how that would be more advantageous for the trust. Maybe find out if there's a way to circumvent the servicer, and pay the trust directly. If I could pull that off it would be excellent. But maybe I'm dreaming.

Any ideas guys?
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,399
226
63
All the Countrywide loans are in trusts with BNYM as trustee. What has been happening is the master servicer (likely Ocwen) been advancing payments using the trust's own funds that's why you see your principal reduced over time but the servicer's account of your loan showing principal and accumulating interests. For example, the 04/2015 Bloomberg collateral file showed my loan balance was $229K ([paid down from $270K origination) but BOfA claiming I owed them $413K ($252K when I stopped paying + interests and taxes+fees). If they could foreclose Ocwen will have made $413K- $229K= $184K.
You should look at the motion for relief from judgement in my excerpt (on Google drive I sent you).
What you can do is have your lawyer send subpoena for trust documents relating to the securitization of your loan, PSA, Mortgage loan schedule at origination and current showing your loan in trust, investor reports from origination to date, and your loan accounting of your loan from origination to date. That will open a big can of worms of mortgage servicing fraud (as described in my notice of appeal). Simply write to the trust administrator will do no good, He/she will ignore you. The trust has no play, does not know about your foreclosure. Subpoenas will inform the servicer you know of their scheme, will make them nervous, Ocwen may go bankruptcy if some investors sue them.
I did not know how to issue the subpoena earlier in my case. That's why the opposing attys and the judge thought they could bully me into submission. I like it this way better. I can expose the fraud to the Court of Appeals, then the Supreme Court, then other courts. Good luck in your fight.
 

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,887
617
113
NJ
While fighting a trustee sale on the basis of contract law and unfair business practices I've had to backburner the intriguing info OHM found on my trust and leave it to simmer for awhile

According to the investor's report in 2010 my loan was modified, payments were made and the principal reduced until fourteen months ago. On my end in 2010 my loan was assigned to CWABS 2006 SD2 who then began foreclosure proceedings. In a judicial state that would have made the fat / lady sing on the foreclosure (at least for now) because I was not in default to the entity seeking to enforce the contract. Bofa jumped in and came to my assistance - and not only provided the proffered modification but even made the payments, all unbeknownst to me. Pretty cool of them, huh? Remember their old laughable byline, "We're here to help" maybe they accidentally meant it. They simply overlooked telling me about this development and decided to try to take my property.

The problem in a non judicial state is that I'm the plaintiff with the burden of proof and a threshold issue is damages. If I can't show the Defendant's conduct caused me harm no relief can be granted. A California judge well ask how I was harmed by the lack of this knowledge and why it would circumvent the terms of the loan.

The second problem is the issue of separate but entangled contracts , the mortgage and the PSA.

It could be argued that the modification of my mortgage was a contract to which I'm not a party, that it was an agreement that exists solely between the servicer and the trust

I'm still trying to figure out how I could use this info in my favor. One idea I had was to contract the person in charge of my trust. His name and email are available on BNYM investors website. Not exactly sure where to go from there but was thinking of tellinghim who I am and which loan in the trust I'm in. Saying that I know the loan is 14 months behind but the servicer is giving me a hard time and trying to foreclose and I'd rather pay those 14 months and how that would be more advantageous for the trust. Maybe find out if there's a way to circumvent the servicer, and pay the trust directly. If I could pull that off it would be excellent. But maybe I'm dreaming.

Any ideas guys?

I just found a case in NY & sent it to you. Sounds like going directly to the investors is not a bad idea....
 
  • Like
Reactions: isisis

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,706
221
63
North bay
More Trouble,

"The scheme, colluded by the default servicer/debt-collector XXX and the
master servicer/debt-buyer XXXX uses defaulted loans which are no longer owned by the trusts, to collect tens of thousands of dollars in ancillary fees and divert hundreds of thousands of dollars to XXX own account (per loan) by continuing to report defaulted loans as part of the trusts. XXX and XXXX maintain two sets of books: one trust account with original loan numbers reported to the trusts with continuing paid-down balances using the trusts’ funds, the second collection account with new account numbers assigned by the debt-collector XXX with accruing interests and fees."

As you see I'm quoting you here and because you sent it privately I took out the entities names. Could you expound on this a little? The defaulted loans are no longer in trusts because they had to be removed - as a requirement of FAS and the OSC that requires non performing loans to be charged off after 180 days, as I remember vaguely we discussed it so long ago - but are now on another set of books but with new loan account numbers. These loans continue to collect fees by reporting they're in default. Then there's another trust account with the original loan numbers with balances being paid down, right?

This seems to track the info OHM found about my loan from the investors report which showed the principal balance having been paid down by over $50,000.

My best guess on the principal being paid down has been the generic PSA requirement that the servicer advance principal and interest on defaulted loans. My assumption had been that those funds were probably paid through insurance but whether or no the servicer is supposed to be repaid from the proceeds of the liquidated loan. Thing is default is supposed to be a very finite condition, what's been happening with us and many others is peculiar. Presumably all this time, ten years for some of us they've been taking a huge loss voluntarily. Why would a secured lender who can with comparatively little effort use the security instrument and take the collateral choose instead to take a loss?

You're saying the trust with defaulted loans generates fees by reporting default but how are those fees being paid? Continuing to add them to our balances makes money but only on paper by increasing the amount owed generating interest at the note rate but there's no immediacy and no certainty that it can all be recovered. I'm missing something here.
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,399
226
63
More Trouble,

"The scheme, colluded by the default servicer/debt-collector XXX and the
master servicer/debt-buyer XXXX uses defaulted loans which are no longer owned by the trusts, to collect tens of thousands of dollars in ancillary fees and divert hundreds of thousands of dollars to XXX own account (per loan) by continuing to report defaulted loans as part of the trusts. XXX and XXXX maintain two sets of books: one trust account with original loan numbers reported to the trusts with continuing paid-down balances using the trusts’ funds, the second collection account with new account numbers assigned by the debt-collector XXX with accruing interests and fees."

As you see I'm quoting you here and because you sent it privately I took out the entities names. Could you expound on this a little? The defaulted loans are no longer in trusts because they had to be removed - as a requirement of FAS and the OSC that requires non performing loans to be charged off after 180 days, as I remember vaguely we discussed it so long ago - but are now on another set of books but with new loan account numbers. These loans continue to collect fees by reporting they're in default. Then there's another trust account with the original loan numbers with balances being paid down, right?

This seems to track the info OHM found about my loan from the investors report which showed the principal balance having been paid down by over $50,000.

My best guess on the principal being paid down has been the generic PSA requirement that the servicer advance principal and interest on defaulted loans. My assumption had been that those funds were probably paid through insurance but whether or no the servicer is supposed to be repaid from the proceeds of the liquidated loan. Thing is default is supposed to be a very finite condition, what's been happening with us and many others is peculiar. Presumably all this time, ten years for some of us they've been taking a huge loss voluntarily. Why would a secured lender who can with comparatively little effort use the security instrument and take the collateral choose instead to take a loss?

You're saying the trust with defaulted loans generates fees by reporting default but how are those fees being paid? Continuing to add them to our balances makes money but only on paper by increasing the amount owed generating interest at the note rate but there's no immediacy and no certainty that it can all be recovered. I'm missing something here.
Your investor report should show who the master-servicer is. The master-servicer continues to report defaulted loans as part of the trust and use servicer advance to pay the interest+principle of the defaulted loans. The servicer-advance is top of the waterflow so they will be paid first before any principal or interest payment to the bond holders. Where is the servicer-advance comes from , see ER-134 (excerpt of record) . Your loan number reported in the trust will be different from your loan number assigned to you by your servicer. My loan NO. in the trust was XXXXXXX with balance of $229K, while BOfA says I owe $445K on its loan number YYYYYY, that's why BOfA needs an allonge to connect the note to the acount YYYYYY. The trustee BNYM is paid a fixed fee called trustee's fee and probalby has no idea who is foreclosing on who. The servicer colluding with master servicer trying to foreclose on you to settle the difference between the two accounts XXXXXX and YYYYYY. They pay XXXXXX ($229K in my case) and get YYYYYY ($445K in my case) by foreclosing. Times that by hundreds of thousands of loans. No wonder BOfA made 18 billion last year. Very profitable business by forging paperwork. All the fees (illegally collected by servicers and master-servicers) are paid by stealing from the trusts' funds even thought the defaulted loans are no longer part of the trusts. Institutional investors had sued trustees like US Banks, BNYM, Wells on this to prevent this from happening.

There is no secured lender. Mostly, what's left of these trusts are subbordinated bonds M-class. The current holders of these bonds did not pay full price, some paid 5cents on the dollar. NRZ is a big holder of sub - bonds. They suffered no -loss, ER- 102 to 105.

I write more later.