Bagels at a Bar Mitzvah

TXWilly

LoanSafe Member
Mar 21, 2013
737
42
28
Likely, the note would have been left in a safe in one of Washington Mutual's offices, before eventually being moved to Ohio. One thing I've pointed out before, and will mention again. Washington Mutual had a lot of loans being held under warehouse lines of credit from Investment Banks, Federal Home Loan Banks, Depositor Cash, and other resources.

They particularly thought Home Equity Loans & Short Term ARM's were solid, safe investments that could never end badly and held a lot of those loans on the banks books. This was contrary to a lot of lenders like Countrywide that had decided to quickly originate and sell the actual loans onto investors.

When they failed, and Chase was offered a fire sale package from the FDIC. And in doing so, Chase absorbed those assets, and liabilities from the portfolio that WaMu had held for investment. Chase also received certain credits, and guarantees, but at the end of the day, the loans WaMu held became Chase Assets, and so did the actual losses on those loans.

I don't know the full specifics about your loan. But I *feel* like I recall you saying, it was a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac mortgage that was serviced by Washington Mutual. If that is the case, Chase would only be servicer, and not investor.
OHM,
Thanks a lot for your detailed answer. In my case when the first foreclosed 8 years ago, while was having a good job and loan modification process was going parallelly and yet the FCed, so I went to Senator and he intervened and then Fanniemae investigated and informed that the service did not follow the procedures. So I have to look at the wordings again. So it is the servicer (Chase) who did that and so not the lender/investor. But after 4 years after that when they tried to FC again and on an affidavit of McCormick who's credibility is questionable when his deposition(in a different case) where he admitted that he has no knowledge of wamu loans bought by chase and that deposition chase tried to seal but another good federal judge did not allow it to be sealed.

So Chase has no authority on these loans?

And I just read that letter from Fannie mae and it states FAnnie mae is NOT the investor of the loan and also clearly says (indicating that Chase is the Servicer of the loan). So effectively this puts chase has no authority to when it has no ownership of the loan/s?
 

moretrouble

LoanSafe Member
Nov 14, 2009
1,349
208
63
Link from livignlies:

We could sue the bank for note+assignment DOT fabrication for damages (including loss of the house) SOL does not start till the foreclosure is over.
Like Krafty says "we fight them (the crooks) till death"

It's NOT over even it's over.
 

TXWilly

LoanSafe Member
Mar 21, 2013
737
42
28
Have anyone approached to your local media about your issue esp if there is enough fraud/crime in your paperwork by the bank/FC Mill etc? What was the response from the media outlets or they brush aside as they are also bought by the $?
 

OneHugeMess

LoanSafe Member
May 30, 2016
471
32
28
OHM,
Thanks a lot for your detailed answer. In my case when the first foreclosed 8 years ago, while was having a good job and loan modification process was going parallelly and yet the FCed, so I went to Senator and he intervened and then Fanniemae investigated and informed that the service did not follow the procedures.

So I have to look at the wordings again. So it is the servicer (Chase) who did that and so not the lender/investor. But after 4 years after that when they tried to FC again and on an affidavit of McCormick who's credibility is questionable when his deposition(in a different case) where he admitted that he has no knowledge of wamu loans bought by chase and that deposition chase tried to seal but another good federal judge did not allow it to be sealed.

So Chase has no authority on these loans?

And I just read that letter from Fannie mae and it states FAnnie mae is NOT the investor of the loan and also clearly says (indicating that Chase is the Servicer of the loan). So effectively this puts chase has no authority to when it has no ownership of the loan/s?
TX Willy, you said you've looked at your local county recordings, and noticed the assignment of mortgage. Here is my million dollar question for you.

Who is the entity holding ownership (most recent Assignment recording) currently?

Is it something like The Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee for CWALT Inc 2006-123. Is it JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ? Is it still recorded as Washington Mutual, F.S.B. ?

I also want you to mash in your personal information on these two websites, and see if something comes back.

I believe personally, deep down, that you have a Fannie Mae loan, that was serviced by WaMu, and than Chase. I believe that Fannie Mae (assuming they didn't sell it) is still the investor, and I believe that Chase is still acting as Servicer. Get back to me with as much information as you can, and I'll try to piece this together.

Chase would be the only entity you could correspond with. As Fannie Mae doesn't ever work directly with homeowners. Chase would also be the only agent - with the ability to issue a loan modification, using the guidelines allowed by Fannie Mae (the investor).

And... generally, in the case of any (Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac) foreclosure, what happens is... the loan servicer carries out the foreclosure in their name, maintains the house until sale, and forwards the proceeds from the subsequent sale or auction to the investor.
 

TXWilly

LoanSafe Member
Mar 21, 2013
737
42
28
Fannie said in 2011 clearly it is not the investor. And Chase is/was the servicer and no trustee with any numbers in assignments. There was no assignment in 2011. But they filed fraudulent assignments in 2016. I found that they were fraudulent and simply saying WAMU to chase due to PSA of which does not hold water since McCormick clearly said he has no personal knowledge of wamu to chase assets in his deposition. My loan was not in fannimae when I searched years back. I guess it was on a trust/local investors (few powerful people) who have been playing this game (stealing peoples home for the long time) and which I discovered thru my case...
 

just_me

LoanSafe Member
Sep 14, 2015
503
36
28
Have anyone approached to your local media about your issue esp if there is enough fraud/crime in your paperwork by the bank/FC Mill etc? What was the response from the media outlets or they brush aside as they are also bought by the $?
TXWilly, I think we are all dealing with what is considered "old news." Sigh. Plus, there was the bank's pre-emptive strike that people deserved foreclosure (oh those innocent banks!) because they bought more than they could afford (versus being swindled by folks substituting loans and appraisals to get your signature for the sake of commissions). I DID notice that FBI appears to be reporting more of these types of frauds again. It's as if they are recycling their old ways again. It's always the broker and realtor working together (and fabricating docs). Fabricating docs is a theme.
 

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,816
591
113
NJ
One Huge Mess-does the tone of the "new guest" (Huh?) who replied to your post on another thread remind you of someone?

Just asking...…..
 

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,816
591
113
NJ
No more evil spirits on bagels. This place is too sacred.

LOL, just me is talking about document fabrication, what about fabricating one's self into something it is not-kind, caring, wanting to help, wanting to lend a hand, wanting to give good advice. Stick that in your pipe & smoke it. I wonder if this evil spirit is the one knocking over my trash cans on trash day. I mean all I got was moving down south out of her. I live south in the state. Wouldn't put it past me whatsoever because it's a juvenile move-knocking over trash cans....I wonder.
 

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,816
591
113
NJ
This really is a good website. I suggest everyone here check it often, lots of good stuff:

 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,662
207
63
North bay
Totally unrelated, but there was a story today that broke my heart. A newborn baby girl, left for dead in a forest in Georgia, inside a plastic bag. Broke my heart. Thank Goodness she was saved & now is alive & healing.

Well maybe it's not totally unrelated. It's the way this country is becoming, and I swear, people can make a difference. We just need to care. It's not that difficult, after all, how long have we all been caring about each other here at bagels?
Speaking of newborns left for dead, I've become the mother of five or perhaps I should say wetnurse. Don't think the birth mother left of her own accord, I suspect foul play of the four footed variety, i.e., coyotes. Out here in the country some nights you can hear their spooky shrieking and howling but I never thought they ventured over the five foot horse fence and on to my property.

My tortoise shell cat gave birth three weeks ago. When she didn't show up for feedings I assumed she was with her kittens. She might have been gone 24 hours before I became concerned and checked up on her inconveniently located nest. Looking out were five of the most forlorn looking kittens imaginable, probably dazed from dehydration. Fortunately warm milk in a dropper bottle brought them around. Now we're on a four hour regimen of bottle feeding and my hands are all scratched up from their frantic efforts to live. But they're prospering and getting fat little bellies.

It's a trip to nurse tiny creatures sucking furiously with milk running down their fur. After everyone's had their fill they each get a bath with a damp washcloth and then snuggle in my lap for a group cuddle accompanied by the miniature bubble sounds of kittens purring.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,662
207
63
North bay
TxWilly,

Something to bear in mind is that the loan servicer is not without authority. As the agent for the alleged note holder they're
authorized to act on the principal's behalf. An agent may be
empowered to do anything the principal may do. 'The fine point to challenge might be whether ther Sevicer acknowledges the agency relationship or instead purports to be the note holder.

Failing to reference the principal - depending on state specific law could mean an assignment failed to satisfy the statute of frauds and is
potentially unenforceable.

We unfortunately agreed that there would be a third party servicing our loans, unaware of the conflict of interest that would arise.
 

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,816
591
113
NJ
God bless & I wish nothing but the best to everyone on this holiday, the "birth of our nation".

isisis, best to the kittens, you're a mommy by heart, my friend. Hope you have a wonderful holiday!

Love you guys, no doubt about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OneHugeMess

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Jan 27, 2014
1,160
146
63
TxWilly,

Something to bear in mind is that the loan servicer is not without authority. As the agent for the alleged note holder they're
authorized to act on the principal's behalf. An agent may be
empowered to do anything the principal may do. 'The fine point to challenge might be whether ther Sevicer acknowledges the agency relationship or instead purports to be the note holder.

Failing to reference the principal - depending on state specific law could mean an assignment failed to satisfy the statute of frauds and is
potentially unenforceable.

We unfortunately agreed that there would be a third party servicing our loans, unaware of the conflict of interest that would arise.
Yes and no.

the real issue here comes in when there's a question of the "note holder" being legitimately the party with status in the matter. A "note holder" that ends up having no status or right to act with regard to your note CANNOT transfer such authority--that it does not even possess itself--to any agent....this includes a servicer.

Servicers only have authority if a legally entitled party grants them authority. When the "note holder" really doesn't hold the note, or is not entitled under law to enforce a note, they cannot hide behind a servicer who, in truth, has no more authority than they do. That's the battle.

Example, in my case, there's a trustee named for a trust. That trustee may or may not claim to the court that the servicer is their agent. The servicer has already claimed in affidavit that it is the agent of said trustee/trust. But when the trust is shown to not be what it claims to be---the "owner and holder" of the note, then any transfer of "authority" or "rights" to that servicer is null and void. A private party supposedly bought this loan. But magically, and without any assignments or transfers, that private party supposedly morphed into a trust as if by magic. The two entities don't have the same name, it's clear that they are not one and the same. And as far as I know, an LLC cannot at the same time also be incorporated as a trust. So, in a case like mine, the servicer IS without authority. A party with no authority cannot grant such authority to an agent. That's the key.

So, does the entity in your case that claims to be the holder actually hold the note? Or, do they actually possess the rights that they claim? If not, then no, the servicer has no authority. If you have ANY question as to whether or not the "holder" really is what they claim to be, I would pursue that angle.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,662
207
63
North bay
Yes and no.

the real issue here comes in when there's a question of the "note holder" being legitimately the party with status in the matter. A "note holder" that ends up having no status or right to act with regard to your note CANNOT transfer such authority--that it does not even possess itself--to any agent....this includes a servicer.

Servicers only have authority if a legally entitled party grants them authority. When the "note holder" really doesn't hold the note, or is not entitled under law to enforce a note, they cannot hide behind a servicer who, in truth, has no more authority than they do. That's the battle.

Example, in my case, there's a trustee named for a trust. That trustee may or may not claim to the court that the servicer is their agent. The servicer has already claimed in affidavit that it is the agent of said trustee/trust. But when the trust is shown to not be what it claims to be---the "owner and holder" of the note, then any transfer of "authority" or "rights" to that servicer is null and void. A private party supposedly bought this loan. But magically, and without any assignments or transfers, that private party supposedly morphed into a trust as if by magic. The two entities don't have the same name, it's clear that they are not one and the same. And as far as I know, an LLC cannot at the same time also be incorporated as a trust. So, in a case like mine, the servicer IS without authority. A party with no authority cannot grant such authority to an agent. That's the key.

So, does the entity in your case that claims to be the holder actually hold the note? Or, do they actually possess the rights that they claim? If not, then no, the servicer has no authority. If you have ANY question as to whether or not the "holder" really is what they claim to be, I would pursue that angle.
Thus my use of the word "alleged" note holder.

Just be glad you guys get to challenge whether the foreclosing party is in fact vested with the appropriate authority. Here on the left coast no authority is required in order to render a homeowner homeless. Or at least not until such time as they've been foreclosed upon and irreparably damaged.
 

TXWilly

LoanSafe Member
Mar 21, 2013
737
42
28
In my case, the loan was from WAMU and there is no chain of title they could prove which was later fraudulently assigned using robosigners (which I have proof thru my investigators) and the deposition of McCormick throws away anything filed by Chase. And Apart from that the POC (proof of claim) filed by Chase and their crooked employees and couple of counsels who signed under penalty of perjury (and this fraud/crime is proven now with my private investigators). And also there are some specific case laws under 11 USC sec 548 (fraudulent transfer of property) can be challenged if the foreclosure did not follow the state rules/procedures (which I have proof) and another is if the alleged buyer (who is a straw one who is corroborating with theother cr***KS) (read jpmc and others), was given warning not to buy then he is alone to be responsible for the peril (I have txt messages with the buyer within days of that fraudulent foreclosure and he said he will check with his attorney but did not do anything to reverse the sale when he had time. So I am gaining upper hand and the same bk judge I met 2 years ago in this same case, did not believe me or did not take my side when I did not have any evidence, but now I have armed with 15+ investigative reports from PIs, he cannot ignore and he gave strong warning to jpmc/fc mill counsels that they will be held responsible for their fraud committed for their clients. Now the entire fraud is open blaring at the face of the bk judge and needs to see what he decides...
 

Javagold

LoanSafe Member
Mar 2, 2012
165
10
18
In my case, the loan was from WAMU and there is no chain of title they could prove which was later fraudulently assigned using robosigners (which I have proof thru my investigators) and the deposition of McCormick throws away anything filed by Chase. And Apart from that the POC (proof of claim) filed by Chase and their crooked employees and couple of counsels who signed under penalty of perjury (and this fraud/crime is proven now with my private investigators). And also there are some specific case laws under 11 USC sec 548 (fraudulent transfer of property) can be challenged if the foreclosure did not follow the state rules/procedures (which I have proof) and another is if the alleged buyer (who is a straw one who is corroborating with theother cr***KS) (read jpmc and others), was given warning not to buy then he is alone to be responsible for the peril (I have txt messages with the buyer within days of that fraudulent foreclosure and he said he will check with his attorney but did not do anything to reverse the sale when he had time. So I am gaining upper hand and the same bk judge I met 2 years ago in this same case, did not believe me or did not take my side when I did not have any evidence, but now I have armed with 15+ investigative reports from PIs, he cannot ignore and he gave strong warning to jpmc/fc mill counsels that they will be held responsible for their fraud committed for their clients. Now the entire fraud is open blaring at the face of the bk judge and needs to see what he decides...
TXWilly I easily won a WAMU Credit Card complaint by Chase as plaintiff in Civil Court in NJ.
Basically just told judge this was $10,000 UNSECURED debt and WAMU is no longer in business and Chase has no standing to get judgment against me.

Judge took 30 minutes recess. Came back ruled in my favor with PREJUDICE. The debt collector attorney was in shock and literally begged the judge not to rule it as he can’t go back to his office with the courts decision.

I see absolutely no reason why these fraudclosures aren’t ruled the same exact way as these BS credit card UNSECURED debts.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,662
207
63
North bay
Txwilly,

That's clever warning the buyer and having documented it. That could be considered notice and defeat Bonified Purchaser for Value.


BONA FIDE PURCHASER

The Texas Supreme Court has stated

Status as a bona fide purchaser is an affirmative defense to a title dispute. A bona fide purchaser is not subject to certain claims or defenses. To receive this special protection, one must acquire property in good faith, for value, and without notice of any third-party claim or interest. Notice may be constructive or actual. Actual notice rests on personal information or knowledge. Constructive notice is notice the law imputes to a person not having personal information or knowledge.

Madison v. Gordon, 39 S.W.3d 604, 606 (Tex. 2001) (citations omitted); see AMC Mortg. Servs., Inc. v. Watts, 260 S.W.3d 582, 586 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.).[2] "[W]hereas actual notice is usually a question of fact for the jury, constructive notice is a legal presumption not to be controverted." Univ. State Bank v. Gifford-Hill Concrete Corp., 431 S.W.2d 561, 571 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

A party has constructive notice of instruments properly recorded in the proper county. Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 13.002 (West 2004); AMC Mortg. Servs. Inc., 260 S.W.3d at 586. A party claiming title through principles of equity has the burden of proving that a subsequent purchaser was not a good faith purchaser. AMC Mortg. Servs., Inc., 260 S.W.3d at 586.

Did your communications with the buyer occur after the sale but before a trustee deed was filed in the county? In other words before title was recorded?
 
  • Like
Reactions: just_me

TXWilly

LoanSafe Member
Mar 21, 2013
737
42
28
Isisis,
The buyer is involved in this fraud though he claimed/claiming innocence but I could see from the pleadings of his counsel who is coached by the bigger crooks. And as per texas state laws any big purchase can be reversed within 3 days of the sale and I have warned on the day of the sale or next day and we communicated and he was about to meet me but did not pursue and he said he will check with his attorneys (which he failed to do so and he is responsible for his own peril) And also I am suing him in another federal lawsuit along with other crooks. And there are few more specific case laws even if he was a bonafied purchaser, if the FC was NOT done as per state foreclosure laws/procedures, the FC sale has to be reversed/invalidated. And I have the proof of all the assignments which were fraudulent and also the sale notice. The sale deed occurs on the the land records office /filed after well over 10+ days of the sale date (I warned him on the date of sale it self/or next day) and he had 3 days to reverse and I specifically informed him about the pending lawsuits and improper fraud/in other related documents. etc and he ignored those intentionally. Have to wait and see.
 

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,816
591
113
NJ
Wanda,

Equitable tolling it is. First off the NJ Supremes are an equivocal and ambiguous bunch. Initially Irwin is carved in stone then they go, well that was for suits between private parties but recognizes its applicability of equitable tolling in suits against the Government. Then they go on to use the word "presumptively" and the phrase "may pause" and then the condition of "when a party has pursued his rights diligently but some extraordinary circumstance" making the issue subject to interpretation.

Then with unexpected self analysis they acknowledge the inconsistency and "unpredictability" of the resulting holdings. Their response is to sanction even greater ambiguity with the conclusion that the courts are mind readers able to discern the intention of Congress regarding whether to forbid equitable tolling.

Then to add complexity to their mind reading efforts the matter of jurisdiction comes into play. They allow that "That does not mean "Congress must incant magic words." Probably because that might have made congressional intent clear and left them with less leeway.

They proceed to discuss § 2401(b) and its mandatory language of "shall be forever barred" and then go, yeah right, it's not over till we say it's over. This appears to work in your favor.

Where does your jurisdiction stand on equitable tolling in your situation and do extraordinary circumstances exist?
Even if you'd be barred by jurisdiction they've carved out a workaround because they, " have described filing deadlines as "quintessential claim-processing rules," which "seek to promote the orderly progress of litigation," but do not deprive a court of authority to hear a case." So no matter how emphatic or mandatory the time limit imposed by jurisdiction Congress has done nothing "special" to prohibit a court from tolling it.

As always the interpretation is subject to judicial whim as is the case in any event.

Throughout Wong there's lots of supportive case law to cite. Is that helpful or should I dig deeper?

Just finished my Complaint against HUD. I'm not taking any chances-in my Prayer for Relief I asked the Court to apply the Doctrine of Equitable Tolling.
;)
 

CAbooboo

LoanSafe Member
Jan 22, 2017
61
7
8
Thus my use of the word "alleged" note holder.

Just be glad you guys get to challenge whether the foreclosing party is in fact vested with the appropriate authority. Here on the left coast no authority is required in order to render a homeowner homeless. Or at least not until such time as they've been foreclosed upon and irreparably damaged.
Hi Isis
Thought I’d mention

I’m on the left coast ( probably 2 hours from you )
Have been foreclosed on (( living like Wanda right next door)
Have irreparable damage ( BK, foreclosure, toilet credit score ... not good for self-employment )

And would be more than happy to be a test case dummy against Hells Fraudo ! Lol
Take care