Lex, Lies and Losers

Mayer Soliman suggested that we consider throwing the SPV Trusts into receivership. Here was my response:

MSOLIMan: Forcing the trust into receivership might be a good idea — or even forcing into involuntary bankruptcy. But be careful here. While the Trustee maintains that a trust exists and that the trustee has powers over the subject matter (res) of the trust, my analysis indicates that by the very nature of a REMIC, whose last word is “Conduit” there are questions about the existence of this “Trust.”

First since the SPV is REMIC and a REMIC is a conduit and must be a conduit to maintain its non-tax status (thus preventing double taxation of the investors) Thus the SPV, often referred to as a Trust does not exist as a trust. By definition there can nothing in it. It serves as a distribution tool and the indenture of each and every bond purchased by investor contains language of conveyance in which it is the investor and not the SPV/Trust that will supposedly own the underlying mortgages and notes.

Adding to the conclusion is the fact that most indentures admit that the attached list of underlying mortgages and notes are not real but will replaced with real ones whenever the CDO manager gets around to it.

Adding to that confusion is the fact that the conveyance is from a party who does not own the loan in the first place and you end up with an empty “Trust.”

That leaves the possibility that a second trust was created equitably or legally by granting the Trustee powers to act on behalf of the owners of mortgage-backed securities. Careful reading of the indenture leads one first to conclude that some powers to represent the investors exist but then later, deep into the indenture, are restrictions on that power that transform the agency to a contingent agency. Thus no trust seems to exist and even the power of agency is contingent, based upon specific express written consent from the investors and their agreement to pay costs and fees and their agreement to hold the Trustee harmless.

The US Bank as trustee for the owners of mortgage backed securities series 2007-1234 is neither an agent nor a trustee. And there is no trust. The ONLY party, as I have repeatedly said, who can seek to enforce the obligation (probably without the help of the non-negotiable note executed by borrower and probably without the help of the mortgage or deed of trust) is the hedge fund or pension fund that bought the security. But none of them are doing so and there are some pretty good reasons for them doing so.

Filed under: CDO, Eviction, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, bubble, currency, foreclosure | Tagged: borrower, disclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, fraud, Lender Liability, mortgage meltdown, predatory lending, securitization, trustee | Leave a Comment »
Mortgage Meltdown: The institutionalization of fraud and criminality
Posted on July 12, 2009 by livinglies

GRETCHEN MORGENSON of the New York Times Keeps Getting It Better and Better. In Today’s article she demonstrates tenacity, insight and combines it with her excellent writing skills. Send her some fan mail. What follows is one of my annotations on one of the many books, treatises and articles that I am constantly reading on behalf of all of us involved in the Homeowner’s War.

Rethinking Bank Regulation: Till Angels Govern, by James R. Garth, Gerard Caprio, and Ross Levine, Cambridge University Press, 2006
- [ ] “Crises are considered a manifestation of imperfect information coupled with externalities.” p.26

- [ ] Relevance: Withholding relevant information from both investor and “borrower” they concealed the true nature of the scheme, to wit: the use of the borrower’s signature as a vehicle for the issuance of an unregulated security under false pretenses. The externalities were the incentives causing “lenders” to jettison underwriting standards in favor of fee income without creating “risk” in an accounting sense but causing great damage to both real parties in interest — the borrower/issuer of an instrument intended to be conveyed as a negotiable instrument and sold as a security to unwary (or maybe notso unwary) investors. Failing to disclose the right to rescind under securities laws, rules and regulations — coupled with the necessary disclosures of the idenity andscope of activities of all the players and their”compensation” creates an absolute permanent right to rescind in addition to the TILA rescission.

The limitations on TILA rescission would not apply if in fact the transaction was substantively a securities transaction for all practical purposes. The transaction was a securities transaction under the single transaction theory — i.e., the primary purpose of getting the borrower’s signature was not to create an asset (i.e., a loan that would be repaid) but rather to fill in the blanks, coupled with plausible deniability for each player as to the true value and nature of the “asset” so that the investor would be misled into thinking that the
triple AAA rating and “insurance (without assets to secure the payment of liability) could be relied upon in purchasing a mortgage backed security. To be sure, it is doubtful that any sophisticated investment manager of a hedge fund, pension fund or sovereign wealth fund could not have have at least suspected the truth. But these were people whose sole economic incentive was to achieve bonuses through apparently outperforming the market — even if later it resulted in huge losses they would blame on external third parties.
July 12, 2009
Fair Game

Produce the Note Act of 2009

Produce the Note Act of 2009 – Prohibits commencement of any foreclosure in connection with certain residential mortgages unless the person commencing the foreclosure complies with specified prerequisites, including identification of the actual holder of the mortgage note, the originating mortgage lender and all subsequent assignees, and other all parties who have an interest in the real estate subject to the mortgage or in the mortgage or its proceeds.
Requires the person commencing the foreclosure to: (1) notify the mortgagor, in writing, not less than five days before any action is taken to commence foreclosure; and (2) certify to the court, in the case of a judicial foreclosure, or to the office of the state to which notice is required under state law, that such notice has been provided.

Tranche warfare — a mortgage dispute gets ugly

This is why they do not wish to modify the loans. Another interesting writing from

mortgage.freedomblogging.com

http://mortgage.freedomblogging.com/2009/03/12/tranche-warfare-a-mortgage-dispute-gets-ugly/7649/

(Update: The lawsuit is provided.)

In the pages of the Wall Street Journal, hedge fund Carrington Capital Management accused a loan servicer of selling foreclosures at fire-sale prices. The dispute reflects how holders of different tranches of mortgage securities can have conflicting interests.

The Journal story appeared last month, apparently after the newspaper got a copy of a lawsuit Carrington planned to file against American Home Mortgage Servicing over the alleged fire sales. (The lawsuit, filed in Connecticut, is available HERE) HousingWire’s Teri Buhl wrote a more detailed story that ran on March 6.

Carrington, by the way, maintains offices in Orange County because in 2007 it bought the servicing platform of former subprime king New Century Financial in Irvine.

Carrington both invests in and services loans. According to Buhl, Carrington is upset over some junior securities, or tranches, that it owns. The loans backing those securities are serviced by Irving, Tex.-based American Home Mortgage, which is owned by investor Wilbur Ross

Here’s another O.C. tie: Ross last year bought Irvine-based Option One Mortgage’s servicing business from H&R Block Inc. Apparently some of the loans serviced by Option One and now Ross are at the heart of the dispute.

Bruce Rose, a former Salomon Brothers trader who runs Carrington, would benefit if Ross’ company halted foreclosures, according to reporter Buhl. Here’s why:

When a loan in the pool does default, as long as the servicer still holds on to the property as a bank owned asset and marks it at the level of the original loan investment, the junior bond continues to pay out, sources told HousingWire.

In contrast, if the REO property is sold and actual market prices are recognized, the junior tranche would effectively be wiped out while the senior tranches divide up the recovered principal. So by dictating how a servicer can manage the loan, Carrington could control the value of its investment while setting up senior bondholders for a fall they may or may not have expected. Sources familiar with the situation told HousingWire that Rose has been asking AHMSI to book the REO in its deals at a mark-to-model method he prefers, rather than using independent appraisals or other common methods of property valuation.

In the story, Carrington argues it has the right to “direct the servicer over the management and sale of all REO properties tied to the trust.”

Sean O’Shea, an attorney representing Carrington, is quoted in the story as saying American Home Mortgage is required to uphold these special rights of Carrington.

“They did it for the first few months, why aren’t they doing it now?” O’Shea said.

David Friedman, CEO of American Home Mortgage, is quoted both in the HousingWire piece and in the WSJ as dismissing the Carrington suit. In the Journal he calls it “ludicrous” and says his company “complied with its contractual obligation to sell already vacated properties at current market value.”

In the HousingWire piece, Friedman says, “The servicer stands by the fact their real responsibility is to not violate its contractual obligations of the trust, and do right by all investors, not just the ones conveniently holding the ‘special rights.’”

HK banks in mortgage war

from http://luxuryasiahome.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/hk-banks-in-mortgage-war/

Japan’s Reit market hits 8-month high

Hotel 81 in Tiong Bahru is a test about changing mindsets »

HK banks in mortgage war

Posted by luxuryasiahome on June 30, 2009

Mortgage rates are lowest in 19 years in face of slower demand for credit

Hong Kong high school teacher Chris Poon’s dream of buying his first apartment was dashed in last December when banks refused to fund more than 50 per cent of the HK$3.5 million (S$657,650) purchase.

Mr Poon, 33, tried again in May and got a loan covering 70 per cent of the price for the 700 square foot apartment in Hong Kong’s Sai Wan Ho district from BOC Hong Kong (Holdings) Ltd. The mortgage rate was 2.25 per cent, down from the 3.5 per cent that Mr Poon was discussing with lenders last year.

Mortgage rates in the city are the lowest in at least 19 years, as far back as records are available, to offset slower demand for other types of credit during Hong Kong’s worst recession in a decade. Among developed economies, only Japan offers similarly cheap loans, as its central bank has kept interest rates below one per cent for the past 14 years, said Leland Sun, founder of Pan Asian Mortgage Co.

‘Hong Kong banks are killing themselves with the low rates,’ said Mr Sun, whose Hong Kong-based firm advises homebuyers.

Average net interest margins for the city’s banks – the difference between what they charge for loans and the cost to fund them – will narrow by as much as half a percentage point this year from 2008, said Lee Yuk-kei, an analyst at Core-Pacific Yamaichi International Ltd in Hong Kong.

The aggregate margin declined to 1.62 per cent in the first quarter from 1.78 per cent in the previous three months, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority reported. At New York- based JPMorgan Chase & Co, the largest US bank by market value, the net interest margin climbed 37 basis points to 2.76 per cent in the first quarter, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. A basis point is 0.01 percentage point.

Banco Santander SA, Spain’s largest bank, said that its net interest margin rose to 3.34 per cent in the first quarter from 3.05 per cent three months earlier.

Thinner margins will slow any recovery in Hong Kong bank profits this year, Core-Pacific’s Mr Lee said. First-half results ‘are likely to be weak’ because of pressure on loan profitability and weakening demand for credit, Citigroup Inc analysts Simon Ho and Franco Lam wrote in a June 16 report.

The combined pretax profits of Hong Kong banks declined 28 per cent in the first quarter from a year earlier, according to figures submitted last month by the central bank to lawmakers. By contrast, first- quarter earnings at JPMorgan and Citigroup in the US and Deutsche Bank AG in Germany increased amid lower credit-market writedowns and higher trading profits.

Total loans in Hong Kong fell 0.5 per cent in April from March, sliding for a seventh straight month as an increase in mortgage lending failed to compensate for a drop in demand for credit among individuals and small and medium-sized companies, according to the central bank. The value of mortgage loans approved by Hong Kong banks rose for a sixth consecutive month in May to HK$28.1 billion, the highest since January 2008.

Banks cut home-loan rates in the city by 15 to 40 basis points in May to an average 2.08 per cent, data compiled by Hong Kong- based mReferral Mortgage Brokerage Services show. That’s the lowest level since records began in 1990, according to mReferral.

‘With these kinds of mortgage rates, banks aren’t really making much money,’ said Dominic Chan, a Hong Kong-based analyst at BNP Paribas Securities Asia Ltd. ‘But for them, it’s probably still better than putting money in, say, US Treasury notes.’ The yield on 10-year Treasuries fell to 3.54 per cent on June 26 in New York.

Mr Chan has a ‘buy’ rating on BOC Hong Kong Holdings Ltd, Bank of East Asia Ltd and HSBC Holdings plc, and a ‘hold’ on Hang Seng Bank Ltd.

The Hang Seng Finance Index, which tracks shares of the city’s biggest lenders, fell 17 per cent during the past 12 months, matching the benchmark Hang Seng Index’s performance.

Bank of Communications Co, the Chinese bank 19 per cent owned by London-based HSBC, started offering mortgage rates on June 10 priced at as much as 3.25 percentage points below its prime rate, which stands at 5.25 per cent. The prime rate is the benchmark banks use to calculate what to charge for mortgages.

‘This is probably one of the lowest mortgage offers in history,’ said Patrick Chow, head of research at property agency Ricacorp Ltd in Hong Kong, referring to the Bank of Communications rate. ‘We’ve seen lower offers in the past, but they only applied to specific new projects or were given only to select clients.’

HSBC, Hong Kong’s biggest bank by branches, began a new mortgage plan in March offering a fixed 2.18 per cent interest rate in the first year and a floating rate of 1.75 per cent below the prime rate thereafter. BOC Hong Kong, which has the largest share of the mortgage market, announced a similar plan later that month, with rates as low as 2.16 per cent the first year.

‘This mortgage price war will go on,’ Peter Wong, head of the Hong Kong unit of HSBC, said at a June 11 briefing. ‘Both corporate and personal lending has slowed down lately, and a lot of banks have switched their focus to the mortgage market.’

Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc, Japan’s largest bank, charges about 2.48 per cent for a variable mortgage in its home market. The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate in the US was 5.42 per cent on June 25, up from 5.38 per cent a week earlier, according to Freddie Mac, the McLean, Virginia-based mortgage buyer.

The decline in Hong Kong mortgage rates has spurred a recovery in the housing market, with home sales rising 42 per cent by volume in May, the biggest increase since February 2008, data compiled by the government’s Land Registry show.

Prices for so-called mass-market homes, or those smaller than 1,000 sq ft, increased about 10.5 per cent in the two months till May 31, after falling almost 25 per cent during the second half of 2008, according to Hong Kong-based Centaline Property Agency Ltd.

Falling money market rates have underpinned the mortgage price battle. The three-month Hong Kong Interbank Offered Rate fell as low as 0.33 per cent on May 21, the lowest since January 2005, as the city’s central bank cut borrowing costs and spent US$23 billion defending the currency’s peg to the US dollar.

At 0.36 per cent, the Hibor is 84 basis points lower than the equivalent London Interbank Offered Rate. The spread was 60 points on April 22, just before the Hibor began to plunge.

‘Last year, the banks sounded like they didn’t really want to lend me any money,’ said Mr Poon, whose mortgage plan from BOC Hong Kong was 2.75 per cent below the bank’s prime rate. ‘This time, it felt like they’ve got a price war going. Every bank I went to trie

“Mortgage War on the Home Front”

I found this to be very interesting, considering the play of action with the legal system and its Lawyers. It was quite a performance of Law in my humble opinion. The TILA stuff intrigues me greatly, I always get overexcited about TILA, but as informed people my Lawyer has always told me that there are many other great manners to rescind a loan, at first I did put up a fuss as I am such a TILA goon, but in the end the common scene factor mixed with the logic concluded or caused to be concluded the actual truth and this was that there are many ways to deal with this Home Owners to be continued

effectively

by Lane Houk

TILA Rescission Case – Bankruptcy Judge Finds in Favor of Borrower

May 5, 2009 · No Comments

The Little Guy (David) vs. the Big Guy (Goliath). These classic battles are being waged in the “Mortgage War on the Home Front” every single day. The subject of this post is a case that goes to the win column for the Little Guy. We are fighting for our freedom, our country, democracy… we are fighting against corporate and political corruption. I hope you are fighting too. This is a war for our rights and our homes and our American way of life. It’s all under siege folks. Don’t be fooled into complacency.

This is one of the most powerful cases I have read in a long time. CLICK HERE to read the actual case order from the Judge in the Adversary Proceeding. The borrower in this case rescinded the loan transaction because an audit of their closing documents revealed a “material disclosure” violation as is defined in 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq. (“TILA”) and its implementing regulations at 12 C.F.R. § 226 et seq. (“Reg. Z”).

Once the Consumer rescinds, the security interest arising by operation of law becomes void automatically. The promissory note is also voided since it is part of the same “transaction.”

The borrower in this case had foreclosure filed against them. After retaining an attorney for the foreclosure, the attorney advised them to have an audit of their loan closing file which revealed a material disclosure violation. It is important to note that a loan can ONLY be rescinded when:

1. The loan is a refinance transaction;
2. Funded in the last three years
3. On the borrower’s primary residence;
4. When a “material disclosure violation” is found

The term “material disclosure violation” is a very important component. Many people (including self-proclaimed experts in loan auditing) think that “any” violation of the Truth in Lending Act gives someone the right to rescind. That is patently wrong. The four conditions above must be true in order for the borrower to have the possible “extended right to rescind” the loan transaction. There are only 4 potential “material disclosure violations.”

The borrower in this case was given an insufficient amount of the Notice of Right to Cancel. A borrower should receive two (2) copies of the Notice.

If a married couple is identifiable on a Universal Residential Application, then each consumer is entitled to rescind and must be given a copy of the TILA Disclosure Statement with all material information accurately and correctly disclosed, 15 U.S.C. § 1602(u); Reg. Z § 226.23(a)(3) n.48, and two (2) copies each of the rescission notice, 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a); Reg. Z § 226.23(b), irrespective of whether both are obligated on the note (or either, for that matter).

In this case, the borrowers were married and received only 2 copies total. Material disclosure violation. Thus they rescinded. The lender Option One obviously contested the matter.

Once the Consumer rescinds, the security interest arising by operation of law becomes void automatically. The promissory note is also voided since it is part of the same “transaction,” see i.e., 15 U.S.C. § 1635(b) and Reg. Z § 226.23(d)(1).]

This is powerful folks. This is a complete remedy to foreclosure. The mortgage is the security interest and it is the mortgage (and the mortgage only) that gives the lender the right to foreclose. In a rescission, the lender must void the mortgage within 20 days. If it does not, it is another violation of TILA.

After rescinding the loan the borrowers also filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The lender refused to rescind the loan. The borrowers filed an Adversary Proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court. Bottom line: The judge heard all arguments from both Plaintiff (borrower) and the Defendant (Option One). The judge found in favor of the borrower/plaintiff and determined that they had the right to rescind. Victory number one.

But a BIG ruling in this case was that since they had rescinded the loan, the loan became an “unsecured” debt since the mortgage was automatically voided as per TILA. Since the debt became “unsecured” it was able to be discharged through bankruptcy like any other type of unsecured debt such as a credit card debt.

The moral of the story: TILA Rescission is the most powerful remedy to foreclosure if/when the borrower has this remedy afforded to them. The key is to obtain a loan audit by a real expert. Call/email me if this is something you want to do. I encourage you to read the Adversary Proceeding Case. It is highly enlightening.
Court Cases, Truth in Lending
Loan Rescission and TILA Violations
Posted by admin On January – 10 – 2009

I recently started a blog post about TILA Violations and what these violations can mean for the financial institutions. This is a BIG can of worms for them because a large percentage of home loans were funded in violation of the federal TILA statute and its implementing regulations found in Regulation Z.

In short, if a TILA violation is found within 3 years of closing on a refinance transaction of the borrower’s primary residence, the debtor/borrower can “rescind the loan.” By serving notice to the lender of the debtor’s action to rescind the loan, the lender has “20 days to return all finance charges, downpayment monies, etc.” to the borrower and must also “remove all security interests on the property” in 20 days.

If the lender fails to do so, it is in violation of TILA requirements, mainly 15 USC §1635 and, according to paragraph “b” of this section, there are some huge implications for both debtor and creditor if the creditor does not comply with these requirements.

Here’s a sample case that you can read as evidence of how powerful this remedy can be: Belini v. WAMU
Reply

Forward

Major Lender Faces Crunch

I have been saying this all along that CIT will go under I cannot see how this mega toxic dump could survive, but here she goes.

Major Lender Faces Crunch

CIT Hires Bankruptcy Adviser as Payment Looms;

Financier to 1 Million Businesses
[link to online.wsj.com]

By JEFFREY MCCRACKEN and SERENA NG

CIT Group Inc., a lender to almost a million mostly small and midsize businesses across the country, is preparing for a possible bankruptcy filing after so far failing to win a government guarantee to help it borrow, said people familiar with the matter.

To prepare for a possible filing, CIT has retained the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, which has a prominent bankruptcy practice, these people said.

The mere hiring of bankruptcy counsel doesn’t mean a company will actually make a bankruptcy filing. CIT has been pressing its case “with increased urgency to the government,” said a person familiar with the matter, and is hopeful because “the government has not said absolutely no to anything.”
[in a pinch]

CIT has a $1 billion payment due in mid-August and it is unclear the company “will be able to handle that,” said this person. The company will give more guidance when it discusses second quarter earnings in two weeks.

CIT declined to comment on whether it was preparing a filing or why it had retained Skadden Arps. But if CIT did file, the consequences could be considerable, because the 101-year-old company, as of March 31, had $68 billion of liabilities.

CIT is registered as a bank holding company and has a bank in Utah with roughly $3.5 billion in deposits. But to get most of its funds to lend, it has historically relied on bonds and the short-term debt market known as commercial paper. It has been largely unable to tap the credit markets since mid 2007 and is trying to raise more money through its bank.

The New York-based lender has been stuck for months in a bureaucratic tangle over government assistance. It received $2.3 billion from the federal Troubled Asset Relief Program in December, after winning approval to become a bank holding company. But CIT has so far been unable to access another federal program, one that helps banks and thrifts sell debt with government guarantees. Access to that program would enable CIT, which has a below-investment-grade, or “junk,” credit rating, to sell bonds at a low interest rate.

CIT confirmed Friday that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which oversees the debt guarantee program, has yet to approve its application. CIT said that its application to the FDIC remains outstanding and the company “continues to be in active dialogue with the government.”

A bankruptcy filing by CIT could affect thousands of small borrowers, from Dunkin’ Donuts franchisees to restaurant owners and clothing retailers. “If CIT were to go away, it would take a financing option away from franchisees who want to buy stores or expand their networks,” said Kate Lavelle, chief financial officer of Dunkin’ Brands, the which owns Dunkin’ Donuts and has had a 50-year relationship with CIT.

CIT Group headquarters in New York. Bonds and shares of the lender tumbled Friday amid its failure so far to win a federal debt guarantee.
CIT Group headquarters in New York. Bonds and shares of the lender tumbled Friday amid its failure so far to win a federal debt guarantee.
CIT Group headquarters in New York. Bonds and shares of the lender tumbled Friday amid its failure so far to win a federal debt guarantee.

On Friday, many CIT bonds slumped on heavy trading, and its stock tumbled to its lowest since the lender went public in 2002, further hurting its chances of raising capital from the private sector without more government aid. CIT bonds that mature in February 2010 were trading at 83.5 cents on the dollar and yielding over 40%, indicating that debt investors think it is unlikely they will be repaid in full. CIT shares sank 33 cents, or 18%, to $1.53, after dipping as low as $1.13 during the day.

The company’s most pressing issue, said those familiar with the situation, is that it has a debt payment coming due in August. In all, CIT has about $2.7 billion that comes due this year and $8 billion more due next year.

The FDIC has been considering CIT’s application for a federal debt guarantee since January and hasn’t reached a decision. The agency is concerned about CIT’s deteriorating financial position and operating losses.

A few months ago, CIT hired former Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman and his boutique investment bank Evercore Partners to try to get more TARP funds or find another financial solution with the government, said the people familiar with the matter.

One problem with getting more aid is that the government has made it clear it doesn’t see the company as a systemic risk to the financial system. The people familiar with the matter said the government feels that other lenders, such as J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. or Deutsche Bank AG, can handle many of the same loans that CIT specializes in, such as loans to small retailers or rail-car leasing firms.

Meanwhile, competitors like GE Capital Corp. and GMAC LLC have been able to sell debt with the backing of the government’s top credit rating.

According to confidential documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, CIT has in recent weeks tried to assess the consequences of a failure of the lender on Middle America. Among them: Companies would lose access to $4 billion in untapped credit lines and thousands of manufacturers could run into problems.

CIT competes with the likes of Wells Fargo, Bank of America, General Electric Capital Corp. and regional banks in the sectors in which it is active. But many CIT customers say that the lender is often willing to make loans to businesses and borrowers that most banks typically shun. CIT now ranks 20th among U.S. bank holding companies, with assets of over $75 billion.
More

Founded in 1908, CIT, which used to be known as Commercial Investment Trust, has had a somewhat tumultuous history, its fortunes rising and falling during past credit cycles. In the 1990s it expanded into areas such as manufactured housing and financing technology equipment, only to get burned when those bubbles burst.

In 2001, following the dot-com bust, the company was acquired by Tyco International Ltd. , but was spun off in mid-2002 when Tyco became ensnared in an accounting scandal.

In 2003, CIT appointed its current chairman and chief executive, Jeffrey Peek, a former Merrill Lynch executive. Under his leadership, it expanded consumer-finance activities such as student lending. It also increased its presence in subprime mortgage lending during the credit boom.

When the credit crunch hit, the company rushed to leave those two businesses, concentrating instead on lending to small businesses and midsize companies, leasing railcars and providing cash advances to manufacturers and companies in exchange for their receivables.

“They are our sole financing partner and we are heavily reliant on them,” said Haresh Tharani, founder and president of the Tharanco Group, a company in the apparel business.

Tharanco has a loan from CIT and also gets cash advances from the lender for its receivables. “I worry about the company…. If CIT fails, it would be detrimental to the confidence of many businesses,” Mr. Tharani said.

I do not know if this helps anyone.

© July 2009 Mario Kenny

I speak to my Lawyer a lot; we have spoken for more than a year on every topic and argument, which concerns the Home Ownership quest.

I wanted, since I think I have been a bit more exposed to the foreclosure stuff than some people I might try to fill you in on my stuff. in this particular field, and please know that I took this study on as a result of the Bankster coming on me to foreclose my home.

Normally, I am a Fashion designer, Costume Designer and Aircraft Interior Designer, but I have turned into a Legal Ranter OK? Just so that we get this straight.

Obama has signed into law a bill that does MODS on Loan but the Loan cannot be modified, No one owns the Loans and those who say they do are not telling the truth. I have a very strong that the Deutsche bank National Trust who pro ports to own my NOTE, does not own anything at all. How delightful this thought is.

The MODS are not working the servicer gets money from the TARP to do the loan this is extra money for the Bankster, plus the principal goes up and so do the payments in the long run. Special notice should be taken to the fact that you are signing away your rights to sue in the future, I saw this in my MOD contract, this is not an acceptable option, in my opinion, so generally a MOD is not ever going to work.

I know that I went to Edgar.com or the SEC.gov looking for the pool that my home was sold in, it indicated that it was owned by ARGENT SECURITIES IN A TRUST SERIES 2006-M1, but for nothing, did I find the Loan Number. I have found Loan numbers for other Loans, but never mine. I do not believe that this bank owns any of these loans. I have not seen, not one of them, actually own not one single home, it’s all a sham. The banking system is totally corrupt, and they are broke, in my opinion, they are leveraged too far out.

When I was first served, the first thing I did was go to the House of Records in my city, in Miami it’s called City Hall, and there I found the assignment of mortgage. This one page doc is so important. The assignments, how many ever there are, in the particular file are the backbone of the ownership of my home. I examined the verb age and the names of all the signing parties, I asked them several questions to ascertain if they had the authority to sign this doc. What I found was that, it was a fake, this is a very important factor to me, and it proves who has standing to even come to court with me.

If this Plaintiff cannot prove they own the interest they simply cannot come to me at all, as is the instant. I stood up from the onset and this is what has made the difference, I believe. As I shifted the responsibility to prove standing on the pro ported Plaintiff, the table turned, that was the first salvo, I shoved at them, the blow was swift, strong and sharp. The Judge gave no written order, but simply told them to start over, and that they must bring the correct paperwork to prove standing, the hearing was very short. I was confused, as I departed the court.

Then I began to mount a salvo of administrative letters to the Plaintiffs and their regulators, I used a Box of paper in correspondence, every so often I would write a letter to all twelve of them, certified mail with return receipt, very important. I alleged everything; I challenged everything and made a fight out of everything. It took months of learning and thousands of hours, on the phone. I spoke to every player involved with me, in the littlest way.

Next I canceled the Loan, at the time I did not know what I was doing and in Many ways, I still do not, but I am saving my home and I have a lot to talk about in my particular situation. I hope that some of this stuff helps you, but all of this is my personal experience, and the things I have done to fend of the Lions at my door. It has worked for me very well, I have always known that I must stay out of the courts for as long as possible, well this was yesteryear, at present rushing to the court with a great claim is the best thing to do. Do not forget to get that great lawyer to go with you its vital; I have been lucky in this way, so lucky.

As I was learning how to cancel my loan I began to meet my Lawyer I first met her on the phone, and began to talk to her for months, we explored so many options and dealt with all the issues I dragged in, I began to see a clear way to fight and thus I began to develop more skill.

Neil Garfield was really my teacher and to date still is, he has many things clear that many of us still did not get, and this is true.

There are many places on the internet where you can study the best ways to fight your issues and do so with success, but in the end a good lawyer is vital, a good lawyer may be hard to find, in your particular city, but, one has to make effort, try really hard to solve this huge riddle before your home is lost. If you do not know what you are doing, you had better get ready to make many mistakes that, you will live to regret. This is why I decided from the onset, to seek representation from a Lawyer, now, finding the Lawyer I have found was hard work, lots of wishing and a streak good luck, (I needed to say that) .

So let’s get back to the cancel the loan issue:

When I became properly aggravated with the plaintiff and all the other Parties and realized that they had all teamed up to rob me of money I did not know I had, and I did not know how they were getting this money, but they got the money, and lots of it, I was hugely mad. I canceled the Loan, at first I sent the cancellation notice to the originator, but after a few days I found another Rescission notice I liked better, so I sent another to all the concerned parties, OK? Well after about 30 days I got no response from no one , so I sent out the final cancel my loan letter and this one got some bites from the scamps. They denied rescission, so the fight continued; I knew that by law they had no right to be able to not rescind my loan after I had requested it, within my time frame.

To be continued

A Massachusetts Judge has sent the foreclosure re sale market in disarray

A Massachusetts Judge has sent the foreclosure re sale market in disarray by bolstering claims that Lenders seized thousands of homes improperly. Court Judge Richard Long had a recent decision to void two of Springfield’s; MS foreclosures sent shock waves across Massachusetts, citing procedural flaws.

Buyers cannot get title insurance for homes, the titles are clouded, and ownership is shady at best
The banks are foreclosing on homes they do not own, these are some of the problems with the foreclosure mania, and banks are making haste the feeding frenzy, rife with greed, deception and misconduct.

AIG is said to be worth almost nothing, yet this company was bailed out three times, by the Tax payer. The significance here is that AIG was a back door funded operation, for all the banks. Those pesky Credit Default Swaps (CDS) funded even foreign banks with Tax Payer money, Deutsche Bank comes to mind endowed with six Billion Tax dollars paid by AIG, and they are a Foreign Bank Operating on US soil, ok I will not get carried away here, I will chill on the rant stuff. Congress did not intend the TARP to fund foreign banks.

OK back to the Ms Case

The judge found that the banks held foreclosure sales even though both Wells Fargo and US Bank lacked documents, at the time, proving that they really owned the homeowners’ mortgages. You see here lies the problem, the sales of those foreclosed homes are all improper, how would you get clear title with this huge cloud of ownership? Uncertainty is the best guess.

Most of the Banks are missing paper work because of the magnitude of sales that, a property went though, confused ownership by operators who had no interest or intent to keep the asset. The asset changed ownership several times and was sold to several people at one time. Who owns the asset or the house comes into question here. This is my issue I am yet to know the owner of the interest intended on me, by another party.

This is the cloud over me as a home owner, I am of strong opinion that this plight is of common denomination with many home owners.

© July 2009 Mario Kenny

Federal Case to defend TILA recission claim.

Sometime last year I canceled my Loan three times, with three different notices sent certified mail to all the mafia who have claimed on me, these are old big banks who are very powerful people.With deep pockets,well positioned and some knowledge they have hurt millions of people in this country, families have been broken up because of the unacceptable behavior of the Banks.

Anyways my federal case is being written as I write here now, I intend to continue in the civil court with some planned litigation, which will toll my tile claim until I get some more belly to face them off in the federal court. I have been very slow in doing anything to the case, my case. I think that since the bankster is not bothering me I would rather let sleeping dogs lie, ” do not wake up the sleeping monster”, but the time has come for the battle to begin, I intend to beat them badly, to fight a sustained battle, with all the force and pride I have in my.

I am very well advised, and secure as far as my case or claim is concerned. I have seen so many people lose their homes and I have cried .some of my finest buddies while we suffered from the tiresome quest of fighting the pretend lenders day and night. I have gone without day of sleep sometimes to ponder and fix all the problems we have had to deal with over this very hard period. We have hoped that our elected leaders would help fast but the banks are very much in charge of making the laws which are passed to solve the problems and it would be needless to say that these laws are always bank friendly. the OCC for instance is totally bank friendly, I will address this in another ranting.

The banks are very active to discredit the lawyers with the clients in clear effort to drive a wedge in the lawyer client relation, one does not have to be a professor to understand why.

In my mind as I think of my TILA claim it is not the end all of anything because i know that when my loan is canceled and the money is refunded, I will still have a balance to repay the bank and therefore, the Bank will have a sustained claim against, I saw this with a friend of mine. My intention is to build a liability that will surpass the value of the dept by far so as to allow the math to render change after rescission takes place this allows me to get actual money from all this mess. I want my payoff and I am very serious about that.

Its very hard to stay the course but one has to be very patient, smart and you must have a good lawyer, I have been very lucky to have been taken care of, Neil Helped me in the beginning and I stayed on top of the issue, always I have wasted not time in dealing blows to the claimants who tried to close me out, to harm me and my family.

Anyways, its back to the TILA claims, TILA is not the end all its only one move that must be acted upon with care and in conjunction with other actionable causes. this is something I clearly understand as liability is very important to derive change to suffice a proper claim. Timing is so important, everything is important I have had many a sleepless night pondering this issue, with measures of success. the idea or one of them is to stay away from the courts but deal with the plaintiff and the other parties with the regulators. Keep in mind that for the most part the banks have the regulators and the lawmakers in the back pocket. These are all in bed together baby but we have many unique chances to fight.

© June 2009 Mario Kenny

I will keep you posted

Being Pro active is the way to go.

I think, and from my own experience taking action quickly but with cleaver planning is essential for lasting success in this fight. The banks or at least my bank are in dis array they cannot find a fix for the problems they have created, they never thought that we would fight them so sturdily, for such an extended period with with vigor. They were are off guard,have fallen down and cannot seem to stand up again, the investors seem to be suing them, for large sums of money. There are thousands of pending investor lawsuits, I have found that the Trust company who is attempting to sue me, actually is hiding behind many unknown straw companies or hidden affiliates.

This is a great time to step it up, the investors who bought income property have many options of action going on in wide circles. In the beginning the investors were losing their shirts, many continue to suffer loss, but some have seen measures of success which give encouragement, that relief is possible. The fight is important, this battle is won in small parts, this is what Neil Garfield have thought me. I have learn t many things from him over the period and I am very grateful to him for this.

The truth? the Trustee that came after me in the onset is now not able to sue me, I have belief that they have to take another avenue and somehow they cannot undo the fraud and deception they have wound themselves with. Its payback time kids, the banks are taking as much as they can, they seek refuge in BK courts, behind the guise of straw companies, at the doorstep of the government, while the leaders give them free money. The trust have also collected money from the insurance pay off in the trust, plus the investors have lost the money in these pools. The IRS have also given them Tax credits for the said assets they are attempting to grab.

Think about this long and hard, this fraud is so huge, but few people really understand the true nature of it.

© June 2009 Mario Kenny