Posted on January 21, 2019 by Neil Garfield
hat tip Bill Paatalo
You can’t pick up one end of the stick without picking up the other end as well. Or, if you like, you can’t eat your cake and still have it.
Banks used third party intermediaries all the time, and in non-mortgage loans they are considered as the real lender for purposes of being able to charge the interest rate stated in the consumer loan agreement.
But the situation is quite different and maybe the reverse in most alleged mortgage loans for the past 20 years. Usually a non-bank funding source was using a third party intermediary to originate the loan. Hence the term “originator” which in reality means nothing more than “salesman.”
The actual party funding the loan is not disclosed at all, ever. In most cases it is an investment bank which is different from a commercial bank, but the investment bank is not funding the loan with its own money but rather using money diverted from the advances of investors who thought they were purchasing mortgage backed securities.
In other words the investors think they are getting certificates that are backed by mortgage loans when in fact, in most cases, the certificate holders have no claim on any debt, note or mortgage executed or incurred by a borrower.
Since the loans are mostly originated rather than purchased by a Trust as advertised to investors, the actual ledner is neither disclosed nor shown on any of the closing documents possibly because it is impossible to determine the identity of a “Lender” whose money was used from an undifferentiated slush fund in which money from investors is intermingled. Information ascertained thus far indicates that the slush fund includes money from the sale of certificates in the name of multiple nonexistent trusts.
Hence the issue of who is the “true lender.” But the Bank’s position in court in unsecured loans may be its undoing when it pretends to litigate a loan in which it was never actually a party to the loan transaction or the loan documents.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
So if you think about it, you can explain why most documents in foreclosures are pure fabrications reflecting nonexistent transactions. If you look closely at these documents you will nearly always be able to ascertain a gap which makes the documents NOT FACIALLY VALID. Or, in the alternative, if the documents are facially valid, it is because of forgery, robosigning and fabrication.
Such a gap might be the oft-used “attorney-in-fact” designation. Without reference to a specific power of attorney and a warranty that it has not been revoked and that it covers the execution of the proffered document, the reference to “attorney-in-fact” is meaningless. Hence the document signed by Ocwen as attorney in fact, is really just a signature by Ocwen who is not in the chain of title, making the document facially invalid. In most cases Ocwen (or whoever is the claimed “servicer” is executing as attorney in fact for a real entity (like US Bank) with a nonexistent role — trustee of a nonexistent trust. Remember that US Bank is a real bank but is not acting in a real role.
By attacking the facial validity of such false documents you are also attacking jurisdiction, which is a deal killer for the banks. Bank lawyers are coming to their own conclusions — independently of their arrogant bank clients and independently of the foreclosure mills who blindly follow whatever instructions they receive electronically. Bank lawyers see trouble on the horizon coming from TILA REscission, and the lack of REAL facial validity of the documents being used in foreclosure which are at odds with the documents used to sell derivatives, synthetic derivatives and hedge products all based upon the same loans.
Here is a quote from the above-referenced article on “true lender lawsuits” brought by borrowers who seek to avoid interest from a non-bank as being contrary to state law:
As a general rule, the fact that a bank subcontracts marketing, loan servicing or other “ministerial,” or nonessential, lending activities to third-party service providers has no effect on the bank’s ability to export its home state’s interest rate under federal law. To this end, the Bank Service Company Act expressly authorizes banks to utilize the services of third-parties. In short, under the federal banking laws, there is no “tipping point” beyond which a servicer becomes the lender in lieu of the bank — so long as the bank remains the party that is performing the primary, or “non-ministerial,” lending activities laid out in the three-part test, the bank is the only lender.
Yet federal bank agency guidance is silent regarding true lender risk, despite the growing number of states in which such lawsuits have arisen. The FDIC published draft third-party lending guidance in July 2016 that had the potential to provide some clarity, but it is still pending. Moreover, the guidance merely observes in a footnote that “courts are divided on whether third-parties may avail themselves of such preemption.”
As to whether a bank’s status as the lender could be undermined by its use of agents, the guidance says nothing. This silence is problematic because, as things stand, one could evaluate the facts of the same loan program and reach opposite conclusions with respect to the program’s status under usury laws depending on whether federal interest rate preemption rules or judge-made, state true lender rules are applied.
Filed under: CORRUPTION, discovery, evidence, Fabrication of documents, FDIC, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, forensic investigation, Investor, jurisdiction, legal standing, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, originator, prima facie case, Servicer, TILA, TILA rescission, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | Tagged: CERTIFICATES, FDIC, funding, third parties, true lender | 3 Comments »
Posted on August 27, 2018 by Neil Garfield
Sheila Bair (ex FDIC Chairwoman) has always understood. She was fired for understanding. It’s hard to understand that the TBTF banks were NOT speculating and never lost any money. Harder still to understand how they stole trillions of dollars from the US economy. And finally harder still to understand how “lenders” could cause a crash.
It’s really quite simple. Usually prices and values are within the same range. Fair market value has always been closely related to the ability of people to pay for housing — i.e., household income. Prices rise when demand becomes high OR, and this is the big one, when the big banks flood the market with money.
Like the 2008 crisis if you look at the Case Schiller Index, you will see that prices went through the roof by unprecedented increases while fair market value was flatlined. The crash was thoroughly predictable and was predicted on these pages and by many other economists and financial analysts.
For more than two decades, maybe three, the housing market has been floating on a sea of unsustainable debt because the investment banks became the “source” of funds in a marketplace where their principal objective was movement of money instead of management of risk. That is because investment banks do that while commercial banks and other lenders don’t — unless they are paid to act as though they are the lender in a transaction where they have no risk. Then they will advertise to people with low FICO scores and anyone else whose loan is likely to fail. They bet on the failure of the loan and the collapse of certificates issued as derivatives.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.
I provide advice and consent to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key elements of a scam. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM. A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345. The TEAR replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
Hat tip Greg da Goose
From Huffington Post:
“Wells Fargo may not even be the worst big bank out there. Citigroup, another merger monstrosity, is so poorly pieced together that today, Wall Street investors don’t even believe the bank is worth its liquidation price. JPMorgan Chase has notched 52 fines and settlements since the crash. Goldman Sachs has 16, three of them this year.
In a revealing interview with New York Magazine earlier this month, former FDIC Chair Sheila Bair said she wished regulators had broken up a bank after the crisis, probably Citigroup. [Editor’s note: Obama initially gave that order but Tim Geithner refused]. Forcing at least one institution to pay the ultimate corporate price would have put pressure on other major firms to clean up their acts.
Both the Bush and Obama administrations rejected Bair’s plan. And so today, the American banking system ― rescued by taxpayers a decade ago to protect the economy ― has transformed into a very large, very profitable criminal syndicate.”
So I ask the question again: “Why are foreclosure defense lawyers not more aggressive about challenging legal presumptions upon which the banks and judges rely?”
Legal presumptions are ONLY supposed to be used in cases where (1) the source of the document or testimony is credible and has no interest in the outcome of the litigation and (2) it serves “judicial economy.”
The banks have been publicly humiliated for acting like thieves, liars, fabricators, and the source of sophisticated mechanical forgeries. Neither they nor their puppet “servicers” are entitled to a presumption of anything. If they want to proffer a fact, make them prove it. These people are so not credible that we regularly talk about robosigners, robowitnesses and other people who are hired to say or write something about which they have no knowledge or understanding. Where is the credibility in that?
And equally where is the judicial economy? In all cases where the presumptions are used and the homeowner contests the foreclosure it would take FAR LESS time for the so-called lender to prove its case with actual facts (not presumed facts) than to spend years changing servicers, changing recorded documents, changing Power of Attorney, etc.
Where is the prejudice? If the Defense raises issues as to the standing and facts alleged in the complaint or initiation of foreclosure proceedings, then the obvious answer is to have the “lender” prove their case with real facts in the real world that do not rely upon jsut testimony from robowitnesses or documents that have been robosigned.
Filed under: burden of persuasion, burden of pleading, BURDEN OF PROOF, CORRUPTION, foreclosure, Servicer | Tagged: Citi, facts versus presumptions, FDIC, housing, legal presumptions, real facts, Sheila Bair, TRUTH, Wells Fargo | 10 Comments »
Posted on June 19, 2018 by Neil Garfield
Not only did this court get it wrong, it apparently knew it was getting it wrong and so ordered that the case could not be used as precedent.
Steve Mnuchin, now Secretary of our Treasury, was hand picked by the major banks to lead a brand new Federal Savings Bank, called OneWest, which was literally organized over a single weekend to pick up the pieces of IndyMac. By the time of its announced failure in the fall of 2008 IndyMac was a thinly capitalized shell conduit converted from regular commercial banking to a conduit to support the illusion of securitization.
The important part is that in terms of loans IndyMac literally owned as close to nothing as you could get. OneWest consisted of a group of people who don’t ordinarily invest in banks. But this was irresistible. Over the shrieking objections of FDIC chairwoman who lost her job, OneWest was allowed to claim (a) that it owned the loans that IndyMac and “originated” and (b) to claim 80% of claimed losses which the FDIC paid.
TO HAVE US DRAFT YOUR DISCOVERY COMPLETE THE REGISTRATION FORM and email us at firstname.lastname@example.org with your request.
TO GET OUR FORENSIC REPORT, CLICK THE LINK SEE VIDEO: How to Use Our TERA Report
954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. Ask for a CONSULT.
REGISTRATION FORM: You will make things a lot easier on us and yourself if you fill out the registration form. It’s free without any obligation. No advertisements, no restrictions.
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
About Neil F Garfield, M.B.A., J.D.
Thus OneWest claimed losses vastly exceeding the “investment” by certain members of the 1% whom I won’t name here. This enabled them to do 2 things. Claim 80% of the fictitious losses from loans that were not owned by Indymac and the foreclose to collect the entire amount.
Mnuchin was put in charge of “operations.” He ran nothing and basically did as he was told. He knew that the IndyMac residential loan portfolio was at practically zero, he knew that the 80% claim was fictitious, and he knew that neither IndyMac nor OneWest, its supposed successor owned the loans. Nonetheless the “foreclosure king” was entirely happy with foreclosing on homeowners who were caught in a world of spin.
The investors in the OneWest deal split the spoils of war. To be fair they didn’t actually know the truth of the situation. Mnuchin painted a very rosy profit picture that would happen over the short-term and he was right.
As with WAMU, Countrywide et al, the business of IndyMac was largely run through remote vehicles posing as mortgage brokers, originators or just sellers. These entities did exactly what IndyMac told them to do and in so doing IndyMac was doing exactly what it was told to do by the likes of Merrill Lynch, and indirectly Bank of America, Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Citi.
As the descriptive literature on securitization says, all vehicles are remote and special purpose so as to protect everyone else against allegations of wrongdoing. But there was nothing remote about these companies. Yet here in this decision in New Jersey the court predicated its ruling on the proposition that none of the players were liable for any of the unlawful activities of their predecessors.
It’s decisions like this that leave us with the knowledge that we have a long way to go before the courts get curious enough to apply the law as it is — not as the courts and others say it is.
Investigator Bill Paatalo: FOIA Request Reveals Servicer’s “Justification” For Fraud In Obtaining Limited Power Of Attorney From FDIC
Posted on March 4, 2018 by Neil Garfield
on Mar 4, 2018
This FOIA response from the FDIC dated June 29, 2017 contains a request to renew CIT Bank, N.A.’s “Limited Power of Attorney” from the FDIC regarding the failed IndyMac Bank, fsb and IndyMac Federal Bank, fsb. The “Justification” for CIT Bank’s request states as follows:
We have undertaken a thorough review of our books, records, and existing loan files for all Group 2 loans and believe we have completed assignments into the appropriate entity for both portfolios where appropriate, available, and where such a need for an assignment is known. However, in our mortgage servicing activities, we continue to be faced with legal and technical challenges, such as borrower bankruptcies and enjoined proceedings, requiring we recreate a chain of title based on factors that cannot be identified in advance without obtaining an updated title report on every loan serviced. It is cost prohibitive to obtain an updated loan level title report for each loan we are servicing, which, again, would be the only way to ensure a clean chain of title through all prior transfers.
Absent a renewed power of attorney, to avoid the risk of jeopardizing our lien position and to enable the bank to transfer title when regularly permissible we would be obliged to approach the FDIC for each instance requiring a signature on an assignment or other instrument of transfer or conveyance where, despite having exercised considerable efforts, we find at the commencement of collection or bankruptcy activities that we do not have a recorded assignment into the appropriate entity.”
The document then states,
Though this document needs no further explanation, I’ll take the liberty to simplify: The only way this servicer believes it can ensure a “clean chain of title” is to obtain an updated title report for each loan it services. However, that costs too much money. CIT Bank is basically saying, “So with your permission FDIC, and knowing as much as we do, we’re going to recreate the chains of title by executing assignments and endorsing notes for all these loans to which we have no ‘clean’ chain of title as your attorney-in-fact.”
This also begs the question. If you don’t have a clean chain of title in your servicing records, and won’t invest in a title report to determine who owns the loans you service, who are you sending the money to?
From Investigator Bill Paatalo’s blog on http://www.bpinvestigativeagency.com
Private Investigator – OR PSID# 49411
Deadline December 31, 2017! File your LPS/BlackKnight FOIA Request NOW with your State Attorney General & Contact the ACLU when they fail to respond!
Posted on October 3, 2017 by Neil Garfield
Editor’s Note: Eric Mains, a former FDIC Team member who saw the securitization fraud first hand, has been encouraging homeowners who are in foreclosure, or were foreclosed upon, to send FOIA requests to their state Attorney Generals and ask for information about the enforcement of the LPS/Black Knight consent judgment they signed. The LPS consent judgment was agreed to by all 50 state AGs and it appears the states took the funds, but did little else to ensure compliance with the order- including the remediation of fraudulent documents filed in county records. For background on FOIA strategy and Eric Mains, see here and here, and listen here.
File a Complaint with the ACLU if the AG’s office in your State refuses to Comply with a FOIA/Public Records Act Request regarding the LPS Consent Judgment.
by Eric Mains
The ACLU has initiated and assisted with legal actions in numerous instances where FOIA/Public Records Acts Requests have been denied in violation of state laws. The ACLU takes a dim view of government entities trying to deny the public its rights to access such information, and may decide to help in your case. Here’s how to get started.
Step #1. Gather copies of your records request and the response/refusal of the AG’s office to respond to your request.
Step #2. Go to: https://www.aclu.org/about/affiliates You will find your State ACLU office website here, and links to where you can file a complaint.
Step #3. If you have filed a suit to force a release of the denied records, or intend to, there will be a space to fill this out on the ACLU’s intake form. Fill out all required information as requested. Below is an example of a description you can use for your complaint regarding a denial of information as to the 2013 LPS Consent Judgment.
The complaint regards the refusal of the (XX State here) Attorney General’s office to release basic & non-privileged information covering a 2013 Multi-State Consent Judgment (“CJ”) under (State Code here) (See attached request and response from XXXX AG’s office). The CJ was touted by the various state AG’s offices as being a “Win” for consumers in remediating widespread forgery and robo-signing which affected thousands of homeowners who faced foreclosure, especially in minority and low-income neighborhoods. The CJ covered affected foreclosures from 2008- 2013, as well as through the present (See attached copy and synopsis also available at http://www.mass.gov/ago/news-and-updates/press-releases/2013/2013-01-31-lps-settlement.html).
A majority of the 50 State Attorney General’s offices entered into the CJ with Lender Processing Services (“LPS”), an entity which was brought to the nation’s attention largely because of a report done by CBS news in a “60 Minutes” episode from April 2011 (See http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mortgage-paperwork-mess-next-housing-shock/ , where CBS reported on Lynn Syzmoniak’s investigation into “robo-signing” used in the foreclosure of her home.
The (XX State here) AG’s office has refused to release the most basic and important information regarding the CJ– Information as to how compliance by LPS under the CJ was being tracked, the metrics being used to ensure LPS compliance, how many consumers obtained relief under the CJ in (XX State here), and the monetary figures of this relief. Without this basic information, it is impossible for the public to know IF the CJ is being enforced as required. The AG’s office further refused to release the quarterly compliance reports required to be given it by LPS, which would have shown HOW and IF LPS was complying with the CJ.
In short, it appears not only has the AG’s office not lived up to its mandate of protecting the public (as the CJ it touts as a “Win” would require), it has also chosen to stonewall the public’s right to obtain basic information about the CJ in order to protect itself from embarrassment and to shield LPS from being required to live up to the terms of the CJ. The AG’s office accepted over ($ XX- settlement $ accepted from LPS here) million from LPS in 2013 as well, and how this money was spent to protect injured homeowners remains in question.
The ACLU has historically helped to pursue many cases nationally where state government(s) have intentionally violated public records acts, impeding the ability of the public to obtain basic information as to how government is fulfilling its responsibilities. The basic information regarding this CJ is being categorically denied to citizens by the AG’s offices in every state, Indiana being one of them, and it is critical that the ACLU help citizens obtain this information to ensure citizens rights are being protected as the AG’s office(s) would represent.
Step #4. File the complaint and all requested back-up documents with the ACLU in your state. Turn-around time is usually 6-8 weeks. Complaints can be filed, online, by fax, or by mail or e-mail.
*Important point to remember- Much as was mentioned regarding the FOIA requests to the various AG’s offices, you have 50 bites at the state(s) apple(s) here to get the 50 individual state ACLU offices involved…if only ONE state is forced to release the compliance reports and information regarding the LPS CJ with the ACLU’s help, it’s going to have a huge positive impact for future foreclosure actions.
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: aclu foreclosure fraud, attorney general consent judgment, consent judgement, Eric mains, FDIC, foia request lps consent judgment, foreclosure fraud lps, lps blackknight | 5 Comments »
Posted on July 17, 2017 by Neil Garfield
American jurisprudence is clearly still struggling with the fact that in most cases the forecloser either does not exist or does not have any interest in the loans they seek to enforce. In virtually all instances PennyMac is acting in the role of a sham conduit while allowing its name to be used as the front for a nonexistent lender.
Such foreclosers use semantics and legal procedure to create and cover-up the illusion of “ownership” of the debt (the loan) and the illusion of having the rights to enforce the note bestowed by a true creditor. This case opinion is correct in every respect and it conforms with basic black letter law in all 50 states; yet courts still strive to find ways to allow disinterested parties to foreclose.
Get a consult and Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
Hat tip to Bill Paatalo
This case amply demonstrates the following:
- The need for a chain of title report
- The need for a chain of title analysis
- The need for legal research and good memorandums of law
- The need to understand “chains of title” or “chains of events” and the laws applicable thereto (e.g. judicial notice, legal presumptions etc.)
- The need to formulate a presentation to the judge that is very persuasive.
- The need to appeal when trial judges don’t apply the law or don’t apply the law correctly.
The following are significant quotes from the case.
Plaintiff, a homeowner and borrower, sued the defendant financial institution for wrongs allegedly committed in connection with a nonjudicial foreclosure sale of his residence. Plaintiff’s main theory was that the financial institution did not own his note and deed of trust and, therefore, lacked the authority to foreclose under the deed of trust. (e.s.)
The financial institution convinced the trial court that (1) it was, in fact, the beneficiary under the deed of trust, (2) a properly appointed substitute trustee conducted the foreclosure proceedings, and (3) the plaintiff lacked standing to claim the foreclosure was wrongful. The financial institution argued its chain of title to the deed of trust was established by facts stated in recorded assignments of deed of trust and a recorded substitution of trustee. The trial court took judicial notice of the recorded documents. Based on these documents, the court sustained a demurrer to some of the causes of action and granted summary judgment as to the remaining causes of action. On appeal, plaintiff contends he has standing to challenge the foreclosure and, furthermore, the judicially noticed documents do not establish the financial institution actually was the beneficiary under the deed of trust. We agree. (e.s.)
As to standing, the holding in Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 919 (Yvanova) clearly establishes plaintiff has standing to challenge the nonjudicial foreclosure on the ground that the foreclosing party lacked the authority to initiate the foreclosure because it held no beneficial interest under the deed of trust. (e.s.)
As to establishing facts by judicial notice, it is well recognized that courts may take notice of the existence and wording of recorded documents, but not the disputed or disputable facts stated therein. (e.s.) (Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 924, fn. 1; Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1375 (Herrera).) Under this rule, we conclude the facts stated in the recorded assignments of deed of trust and the substitution of trustee were not subject to judicial notice. (e.s.) Therefore, the financial institution did not present evidence sufficient to establish its purported chain of title to the deed of trust. Consequently, the financial institution failed to show it was the owner of the deed of trust and had the authority to foreclose on plaintiff’s residence.
We therefore reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
The Links in PennyMac’s Purported Chain of Title
“Links” in a chain of title are created by a transfer of an interest in the underlying property from one person or entity to another. An examination of each link in the purported chain of title relied upon by PennyMac reveals that certain links were not established for purposes of the demurrer. Our analysis begins with a description of each link in the purported chain (and each related document, where known), beginning with the husband and wife who sold the residence to Borrower and ending with the trustee’s sale to PennyMac.
Link One-Sale: Clarence and Betty Dake sold the residence to Borrower pursuant to a grant deed dated April 19, 2005, and recorded on June 30, 2005. The parties do not dispute this transfer.
Link Two-Loan: Borrower granted a beneficial interest in the residence to Long Beach Mortgage Company pursuant to a deed of trust dated June 21, 2005, and recorded on June 30, 2005. The parties do not dispute this transfer.
Link Three-Purported Transfer: Long Beach Mortgage Company purportedly transferred its rights to Washington Mutual Bank by means of a document or transaction not identified in the appellate record. Also, the appellate record does not identify when the purported transaction occurred. Borrower disputes the existence of this and subsequent transfers of the deed of trust. (e.s.)
Link Four-Purported Transfer: Washington Mutual Bank purportedly transferred its rights to JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association in an unidentified transaction at an unstated time. (e.s.)
Link Five-Assignment: JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, successor in interest to Washington Mutual Bank, successor in interest to Long Beach Mortgage Company, purportedly transferred the note and all beneficial interest under the deed of trust to “JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association” pursuant to an assignment of deed of trust dated July 25, 2011, and recorded on July 26, 2011.
Link Six(A)-Assignment: JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association transferred all beneficial interest in the deed of trust to PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust Holdings I, LLC pursuant to a “California Assignment of Deed of Trust” dated September 14, 2013, and recorded on November 15, 2013.
Link Seven-Trustee’s Sale: California Reconveyance Company, as trustee under the deed of trust, (1) sold the residence to PennyMac at a public auction conducted on November 20, 2013, and (2) issued a trustee’s deed of sale dated November 21, 2013 and recorded on November 22, 2013. PennyMac, the grantee under the deed upon sale, was described in the deed as the foreclosing beneficiary.
Link Six(B)-Purported Assignment: The day after the trustee’s sale, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association executed a “Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust” dated November 21, 2013, purporting to transfer the deed of trust without recourse to PennyMac Holdings, LLC. The assignment was recorded November 22, 2013. This assignment was signed (1) after JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association had signed and recorded the “California Assignment of Deed of Trust” described earlier as Link Six(A) and (2) after the trustee’s sale was conducted on November 20, 2013. Consequently, it is unclear whether any interests were transferred by this “corporate” assignment.
3. Links Three and Four Are Missing from the Chain
Postscript from Editor: This Court correctly revealed the fraudulent strategy of the banks, to wit: they created the illusion of multiple transfers giving the appearance of a solid chain of title BUT 2 of the transfers were fake, leaving the remainder of the chain void.
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: California Reconveyance Company, FDIC, Glaski, JPMorgan Chase, JPMorgan Chase Bank, judicial notice, Long Beach Mortgage Company, Office of Thrift Supervision, Pennymac, PennyMac Holdings, PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust Holdings I, Washington Mutual Bank, Yvanova | 13 Comments »