Huff: WHo Owns My Mortgage

[halik]

You guys have *got* to look at this - A gentleman put together a chart while trying to figure out who in hades owns his mortgage.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/16/mortgage-security-chart_n_784274.html

Umm that's not who owns the mortgage, that's the diagram of origination, securitization work flow, servicing, trustees, escrow company and the trust that owns the deed and legal entity that warehouses the deed.

The issue of trusts missing some docs and what not is generally a last ditch effort from the borrowers in judicial states. The far more interesting part is that sellers of the notes guaranteed against fraud on the underlying, which means putbacks on some of the subprime stuff is a possibility.

 

[Thump553]

spacejamz: The robo signing is the paperwork (affidavits, etc) submitted to the court to support the motion for judgment. And who owns the mortgage is highly significant-only that party has standing to bring the foreclosure. As for your claim that the homeowner is out of the picture at that point is just totally wrong.

Overlaying all of this is the fact that-since at least the middle ages-courts doing foreclosure act as courts of equity. It's not simply a matter of prove facts A, B & C and a foreclosure judgment necessarily occurs. There is a doctrine in equity known as clean hands which basically means to get justice, you must do justice. Scamming the court by submitting unread sworn testimony can easily result in dismissal of the foreclosure, among other results.

 

[spacejamz]

spacejamz: The robo signing is the paperwork (affidavits, etc) submitted to the court to support the motion for judgment. And who owns the mortgage is highly significant-only that party has standing to bring the foreclosure. As for your claim that the homeowner is out of the picture at that point is just totally wrong.

Overlaying all of this is the fact that-since at least the middle ages-courts doing foreclosure act as courts of equity. It's not simply a matter of prove facts A, B & C and a foreclosure judgment necessarily occurs. There is a doctrine in equity known as clean hands which basically means to get justice, you must do justice. Scamming the court by submitting unread sworn testimony can easily result in dismissal of the foreclosure, among other results.

So in any of these cases where the robo signings occurred, is the homeowner justified in keeping the house?

The homeowner has already missed a significant number of payments, plus late charges and fees on top of that. Usually, in this stage of the process, they are no longer living in the house.

Please tell me how anything outside of paying back everything to bring the loan current that would entitle the homeowner to keep the house?

 

[IronWing]

So in any of these cases where the robo signings occurred, is the homeowner justified in keeping the house?

No. It means the mortgage holder has to go back and do their homework correctly and try again. In the mean time the homeowner get to keep the house. If the judge is pissed the note holder might face perjury charges if warranted.

 

[Thump553]

So in any of these cases where the robo signings occurred, is the homeowner justified in keeping the house?

The homeowner has already missed a significant number of payments, plus late charges and fees on top of that. Usually, in this stage of the process, they are no longer living in the house.

Please tell me how anything outside of paying back everything to bring the loan current that would entitle the homeowner to keep the house?

That's not what I said at all-go back and re-read it and work on your reading comprehension.

You are also assuming what the lender says is always 100% correct. If so having the courts is superfluous-at least in your reality.

 

[Jhhnn]

In theory, the MERS system is a great idea to avoid unnecessary recording expenses, which can be quite big. But in practice it's way too vague right now.

You mean it's a great way to deprive county govts of revenue to which they're otherwise legally entitled, right?

 

[Fern]

I never really understood the big deal about this topic nor why people are up in arms about robo signers. The news pieces I watch on this all have a common theme. The people stopped making payments on their mortgage and they admit they still arent paying. Why does it matter who owns the note or if somebody down in an office signed off on starting foreclosure proceedings?????

This is just anedotal (sp?), but I had to appear in court as an expert witness and was made to sit through a bunch of unrelated stuff (unrelated to me anyway).

The person's lawyers were arguing with the bank official appearing there due to non-paymen.

Apparently if you can't prove you (or your bank) own the note you can't prove you have the standing to sue anybody for non-payment. You also can't prove they owe you anything. Looked to me like you cannot get past square one unless you prove that. Until you prove it seemed to me the court wouldn't entertain anything about non-payment.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

lease tell me how anything outside of paying back everything to bring the loan current that would entitle the homeowner to keep the house?

The fact that nobody else can prove they have standing to take it, which is a function of state law.

I wouldn't worry too much about potential moral hazards in all of this, because such considerations were already cast aside with the bank bailout. Failed entities should have been nationalized, their execs sacked, their balance sheets made honest, then sold back into private hands.

As I've offered earlier, if anybody here can actually read, Servicers' interests and investors' interests are not necessarily congruent, at all. We have the assets of entities in bankruptcy court being sold outside of the auspices of that court, whose job is to protect investors from such happenings. We have servicers foreclosing on mortgages whose revenue streams no longer go to the bankrupt MBS held by investors, at all. The terms of the original MBS are such that servicers now take a windfall by foreclosing. We have investment entities whose losses may only be theoretical, given the use of derivatives as a form of insurance.

Given that the servicers are usually the creators of the original bogus securities, what would lead anybody to think that they'll now hold investor interest in higher regard than when they sold them crap in the first place? Faith in self regulated banking?

 

[Darwin333]

How is their due process being hampered by a robo signer and not knowing who owns their note?

Because someone has to prove they have an interest in something that you have, especially something like the house you are living in, before the court takes it from you and gives it to them. Its kind of an important part of the procedure.

In most rational peoples opinion, as well as most state laws, it is a good thing that I can't forge/robosign a bunch of papers and have the sheriff kick you out of your house even though I have no financial interest in your house at all and you aren't behind on your payments. Nor should you have to prove that you aren't behind on your payments in order to keep the house when the other party can not prove they have the legal right to it. It is up to them to prove that a debt is owed, per contractual obligations it has been defaulted, and they have the right to seize the collateral for that loan. Do you really have a problem with that?

Another itsy bitsy piece of information, if the wrong bank forecloses on your house and sells it you still owe the money to whoever actually owns the loan. Now it is on YOU to sue the other assholes in order to pay the person who is rightfully due the money. I see absolutely no problem with forcing the parties to prove, to the legal standards of the state that they chose to do business with, that they have a legal right to the property they are trying to seize.

 

[Darwin333]

This is just anedotal (sp?), but I had to appear in court as an expert witness and was made to sit through a bunch of unrelated stuff (unrelated to me anyway).

The person's lawyers were arguing with the bank official appearing there due to non-paymen.

Apparently if you can't prove you (or your bank) own the note you can't prove you have the standing to sue anybody for non-payment. You also can't prove they owe you anything. Looked to me like you cannot get past square one unless you prove that. Until you prove it seemed to me the court wouldn't entertain anything about non-payment.

Fern

Golly, you mean I have to actually prove that you owe me something before the court will make you pay/give it to me, especially something as substantial as a house?

Bunch of commie judges I tell ya.

 

[Darwin333]

Umm that's not who owns the mortgage, that's the diagram of origination, securitization work flow, servicing, trustees, escrow company and the trust that owns the deed and legal entity that warehouses the deed.

The issue of trusts missing some docs and what not is generally a last ditch effort from the borrowers in judicial states. The far more interesting part is that sellers of the notes guaranteed against fraud on the underlying, which means putbacks on some of the subprime stuff is a possibility.

Bingo. The banks might have to actually reap what they have sown. Makes me all warm and fuzzy inside just thinking about it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Golly, you mean I have to actually prove that you owe me something before the court will make you pay/give it to me, especially something as substantial as a house?

Bunch of commie judges I tell ya.

Yep- Leftists! and terrarist coddlin' pinko islamofascists who make baby Jesus cry...

 

[Darwin333]

What due process is being taken away? By the time these robo signings are being done, these homeowners have already seriously defaulted on their loan and probably have no chance of coming up with the money to bring it current so they can move back in.

This whole 'who owns' the mortgage BS just boils down to which investors really got shafted by the homeowner who didn't make their payments...They can deliberate that amongst themselves. The homeowner is out of the picture at this point so please don't cry that these homeowners are not being treated fairly...

If the wrong entity ends up with the property then the ex-homeowner still owes the money to the entity that actually holds the note.

The "banks" won't be going after each other, they will be going after the person that legally owes them the money regardless if they still have the house or not. It will be up to the person that owes the money to go after the people who wrongfully took the house. Why should anyone put themselves in that position when the fine print (the banks invented fine print) and most state laws say the entity must prove that you actually owe them money before they can take the house?

Are you really dumb enough to let the wrong person foreclose on your house and STILL owe the original note to the "right" people if you had a perfectly reasonable and legal way to prevent it? It is amazing that you are adamantly against people getting a free house but obviously have no problem with banks getting a free house.

 

[Darwin333]

What about it? What is illegal about iniating foreclosure proceedings on a property that hasnt had a payment made on it?

Should I be able to initiate those proceeds on your property even though I can't prove that I have the legal ability to? Should I be required to prove that you actually owe me the property and are in fact in default to ME before the court gives your property to me?

Or should they just take my word on it after I committed a few dozens counts of forgery in the course of trying to get them to give me your property that I can't prove you owe me? You really don't see the problem with this?