TRUMP INCENTIVES LURING BUYERS TO JERSEY CITY

Editors note:
So Trump can offer a 30 year fixed rate at below 5 percent, killer selling price but the banks cannot modify the loans to reduce the principal, interest rate and give a fixed rate affordable loan.

http://cahncomm.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/trump-incentives-luring-buyers-to-jersey-city/

Jersey City, NJ – With new hope comes new opportunities, and in keeping with the times, joint venture partners Metro Homes, LLC and The Trump Organization are now offering unprecedented opportunities at the iconic 55-story luxury condominium building located in downtown, Jersey City.

While current pricing now starts at just $440,500, the developer is offering a special 10% discount on select homes which brings that price down to an unbelievable $396,450. In addition, qualified buyers can take advantage of an incredible 3.75%, 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, and one free year of parking in the enclosed garage or one free year of condominium insurance.

“This incredible opportunity offers buyers the chance to buy the world-class home of their dreams at prices more in tune with these times,” notes Dean Geibel, President of Metro Homes. “The attractive pricing and remarkable interest rate enables more buyers to enjoy the celebrated Trump lifestyle that they thought was out of their reach.”

Trump Plaza Jersey City stands 55 stories tall and features 444 spectacular condominium residences — 375 of which are already sold. The spectacular new residence is the tallest residential building in New Jersey and boasts unobstructed views of the New York City skyline, the Statue of Liberty and the ever-changing Hudson River scene.

Recently completed at Trump Plaza is a full floor of five-star, hotel-style amenities that allows residents to indulge themselves in 41,000 square feet of unparalleled indoor and outdoor lifestyle attractions. These include a Roman-style Aqua Grotto spa offering a classic social steam, sauna, walk-in experiential shower, a 25-foot demi-lune heated thermal bath and tranquil treatment rooms.
There’s also an indoor entertainment lounge with plasma TV and fireplace, private theater, billiard room, golf simulator, 3,000 square-foot fitness center, and a lushly landscaped plaza with a saltwater swimming pool. For more personal attention, residents enjoy a uniformed, round-the-clock doorman and 24-hour Concierge, in addition to an “At Your Service” Concierge, offering everything from dry cleaning and shoe repair to dog walking and maid service.

Style and grandeur are masterfully displayed in the signature Trump Plaza entrance portico and two-story lobby, where renowned designer Amir Khamneipur blended such elegant finishes and appointments as ebony Macassar portals, French limestone floors, Venetian glass, oversized windows and a large limestone fireplace.
Of course, the depth of the building’s appeal and urbane sophistication carry throughout the homes as well. Trump Plaza’s studios, one-, two-, and three-bedroom residences range in size from 734 to 2,050 square feet of magnificent living space.
“What began as an extraordinary vision has culminated as a one-of-a-kind residential property,” notes Jacqueline Urgo, President of The Marketing Directors, Inc., Trump Plaza’s marketing and exclusive sales agent. “The building’s exceptional location, dramatic living spaces, premier service, incomparable amenities and breathtaking views all stand up to the Trump name and mystique, and now it can be yours for less.”
To make an appointment to visit the on-site sales office and model home located at 88 Morgan Street, please call 1-888-NJTRUMP or visit www.njtrump.com.
###

Posted in Metro Homes | Tags: amenities, Concierge Service, condominiums, Condos, george washington bridge, Hudson County condos, Hudson County new homes, Hudson River, Hudson River Condos, Jersey City, jersey city apartments, Jersey City condos, Jersey City Gold Coast, Jersey City new homes, Jersey City real estate, Manhattan, Metro Homes, new homes, new homes in New Jersey, new jersey, new jersey apartments, New Jersey real estate, New York City, resort amenities, The Marketing Directors, The Trump Organization, Trump Plaza

Rescission, Rescission and Rescission

Filed under: foreclosure | 20 Comments »

Neil rants off on rescission, it is such a deep dark hole to figure this all out at once.

Rescission, Rescission and Rescission

Posted on August 26, 2009 by livinglies

Amongst the various emails, requests for assistance and comments on the blog there are some threads. Most people, even lawyers, mistake the remedy of rescission for something else. The first thing you need to know is that, no, you don’t give your house “back” to the lender because you never got your house from the lender (pretender lender) in the first place. You received money and you didn’t receive it from the “lender” if your loan was securitized.
There are several types of rescission and this list is by no means exhaustive:
Truth in Lending
Usury — see appraisal fraud
Common law fraud
Securities law violations
Statutory rescission based upon deceptive lending practices
Statutory Rescission based upon deceptive business practices
Each one carries its own unique set of characteristics. TILA rescission is interesting but is not being used successfully because people don’t understand it and then there is the problem of who you send the notice of rescission to if you already know you are not dealing with the “lender.” You can look up the details of TILA rescission in the search engine for this site. The important thing to remember is that in a TILA rescission the lender is required to either take it to court in a petition for declaratory action or comply and give you a satisfaction of mortgage, a canceled note and release. And the “lender” has a time limit to contest your notice of rescission. If they exceed the time limit you would argue that they have waived their right to refute it. And if they change position on you and claim they are not the lender and therefore your rescission notice is void, then they cannot foreclose. A midway position would be to allow them extra time to file the declaratory action, but that would violate the express words of the Federal Statute.
In TILA your “tender” is not due until AFTER the lender has either complied with the statute or complied with the court order when they lose the petition for declaratory relief. But you might find that the Judge agrees with you that they have no right to foreclose and that for the same reason you sent the notice to the wrong party. That would require you to file also a Petition to Quiet Title naming John Does 1-1000 among others, and anyone else you know that is involved on the creditor side.
The point is that by filing the notice of rescission you immediately create a powerful argument for saying the obligation was converted from a secured obligation to an unsecured obligation. And you have a strong argument to say that the note is no longer evidence of the obligation because it is BY OPERATION OF LAW extinguished along with the mortgage or deed of trust. So if you ever get up to the point where you must tender money or payment to the real lender, whoever that might be, you will tender only so much as the obligation, less the value of your claims, defenses, counterclaims etc. for all the causes of action discussed on this blog.
It probably will turn out that your “tender” will be a demand letter that says to the “lender” now you owe me damages on top of releasing the house from the encumbrance.
If the case proves out under usury because of predatory loan tactics, usury, securities violation or any combination, you could be entitled to treble damages (read that as three times the stated principal of your note). If you expand the claim to include a claim for all undisclosed profits and fees and all money paid at closing and purportedly under the loan, you probably have a claim that totals around twice the amount of your mortgage note.
If you further expand your claim for undisclosed profits in the form of payoff from credit default swaps, your claim could be up to thirty times the amount of the note — right that is “thirty” because that is the amount they got when your loan “defaulted”. Note that in order to score this windfall they had to do everything in their power to make sure the loan goes into default thus triggering the CDS insurance. So when they take money from you, and they are supposedly negotiating with you for modification, what they are REALLY doing is getting you past the point of no return so they can collect on the insurance and take your house too.
Many people are getting letters back from the pretender lender saying they have no right to rescind. Very interesting, but wrong. That statue says that if they think they have a legitimate claim to defer or eliminate your claim for rescission that must do it in the form of a declaratory action. They don’t want to do that because they would be required to reveal many details of the transaction that they never want the Judge to see. The statute does not say the lender can simply send a letter.
If they have failed to comply and they go forward with foreclosure then one strategy would be to bring an emergency action for permanent injunction plus attorney fees and costs, stating that there is no encumbrance BY OPERATION OF LAW (see exhibit “A” Notice of Rescission) plus the allegation that they neither complied nor filed the declaratory action.
And don’t take the narrow response that your loan is a purchase money first mortgage and is therefore excluded from TILA. That probably isn’t true even if it looks otherwise. There was nothing simple about this transaction. And even a cursory look at the snaked path of the transaction from the homeowner up to the investor who bought bonds (mortgage backed securities and was therefore the ultimate source of the funds) will show that if this was a purchase money first mortgage it did not resemble any other purchase money first mortgage before securitization. And then of course there are all those other grounds for rescission and damages.
Why do “lenders’ and “pretender lenders” say “no” and pull all these other tricks amounting to theft, trickery and deceit? Because they can if you let them. It works for them in 99% of the cases and they get the house and the insurance too. Nice deal for them, don’t you think?

Wegelin bank to pull out of US

This is not the stuff you would see on the front pages of our news. Most people will never know

August 25, 2009 – 8:50 PM

Wegelin bank to pull out of US

Swiss private bank Wegelin announced on Tuesday that it is to stop doing business in the United States.
The St Gallen-based bank, Switzerland’s oldest, said the decision had been taken in response to stricter measures introduced in the US against tax dodgers and planned changes to estate tax, which would make some non-US citizens liable to tax if they inherited US securities.

In a letter to investors it said Swiss banks were likely to find themselves in an untenable position, as they would be expected to know which clients were liable to pay US tax – “an impossible undertaking”, given the lack of clear definitions in the matter.

The danger of inadvertently making false declarations to the US tax authorities will be too great, it explained.

It added that it believes the US overestimates its attraction as a financial centre, and is advising its clients to get out of all US securities.

The decision comes a week after US tax authorities reached a deal with the Swiss government which will see bank UBS hand over details of almost 4,500 suspected tax cheats.

swissinfo.ch

Fed Must Release Reports on Emergency Bank Loans, Judge Says

link to www.bloomberg.com]

Aug. 25 (Bloomberg) — The Federal Reserve must make records about emergency lending to financial institutions public within five days because it failed to convince a judge the documents should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska rejected the central bank’s argument that the records aren’t covered by the law because their disclosure would harm borrowers’ competitive positions. The collateral lists “are central to understanding and assessing the government’s response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression,” according to the lawsuit that led to yesterday’s ruling.

The Fed has refused to name the borrowers, the amounts of loans or the assets put up as collateral under 11 programs, saying that doing so might set off a run by depositors and unsettle shareholders. Bloomberg LP, the New York-based company majority-owned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sued Nov. 7 on behalf of its Bloomberg News unit.

“When an unprecedented amount of taxpayer dollars were lent to financial institutions in unprecedented ways and the Federal Reserve refused to make public any of the details of its extraordinary lending, Bloomberg News asked the court why U.S. citizens don’t have the right to know,” said Matthew Winkler, the editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News. “We’re gratified the court is defending the public’s right to know what is being done in the public interest.”

‘Involuntary Investor’

Bloomberg said in the suit U.S. taxpayers need to know the risks behind the central bank’s $2 trillion in lending because the public is an “involuntary investor” in the nation’s banks.

The Federal Reserve’s balance sheet about doubled beginning in September to more than $2 trillion because of a historic attempt to rescue financial institutions. For the week ended Aug. 19, Fed assets rose 2.3 percent to $2.06 trillion as the central bank bought more mortgage-backed securities. Non-government securities were allowed to be purchased by the Fed for the first time.

The Freedom of Information Act obliges federal agencies to make government documents available to the press and public. The Bloomberg suit, filed in New York, doesn’t seek money damages.

David Skidmore, a Fed spokesman, said the board’s staff was reviewing the ruling and declined to comment on it at this time.

The case is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

Trade association, underwriter at odds in RESPA case

Issue Date: RESPA News Monthly
April 2009, Posted On: 4/20/2009
Title Insurance

Trade association, underwriter at odds in RESPA case

A court case alleging RESPA violations against First American Title Insurance Co. has turned into an argument between the underwriter and a recently formed national trade association.

The National Association of Independent Land Title Agents (NAILTA) filed an amicus brief in favor of homeowners suing First American Title Insurance Co. for allegedly violating RESPA by entering into exclusive agency agreements with title agencies across the country.

NAILTA is a nonprofit organization formed in November 2008 to represent the interests of state-licensed independent title insurance agents and agencies.

First American filed an opposing brief attempting to have the court dismiss NAILTA’s amicus brief, claiming the association is “not what it purports to be.” That spurred the NAILTA to file a reply to First American.

NAILTA submitted its brief in support of the named plaintiff, Denise Edwards, and in favor of reversing two U.S. District Court rulings denying Edwards’ complaint against First American Title Company as class action status.

Edwards filed a complaint in June 2007 against First American Title Insurance Co. and its parent, The First American Corp., alleging RESPA violations after purchasing her house using Tower City Title Agency to purchase title insurance. Tower City referred her to First American Title. Edwards alleged that First American had formed agreements with various title agencies, including Tower City, in which they “paid large sums of money in exchange for exclusive referral arrangements that funneled all of the title agencies’ business to defendants.”

Edwards specifically alleged that referrals made by 180 title agencies were unlawful because each title agency received a “thing of value” when First American overpaid that title agency for an ownership interest.

Court denies class action

After denying First American’s motion to dismiss the case, Edwards moved forward with a motion to certify a nationwide class of all consumers who, after June 12, 2006, entered into federally related mortgage loan transactions using the services of a title agency owned in part by First American, in which First American issued the title insurance policies.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied class certification finding that class action was not appropriate because the court felt that individual issues predominated the case. It did say that further discovery may yield evidence that a smaller class of Tower City consumers could be certifiable.

Edwards then filed her second motion for class certification, this time of a Tower City class. Though the court found that this class satisfied the prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), it said the class was not maintainable under Rule 23(b) because too much individualized proof would be required to prove membership in the class.

Edwards appealed both of the trial court’s decisions to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Support from NAILTA

NAILTA recently filed its amicus brief with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In its amicus brief, NAILTA argued that captive title insurance agreements (CTIAs), such as those First American entered into with Tower City and others, reduces the competition between settlement services providers.

NAILTA argued that title insurance agents are in the best position to “provide insight and advice to title insurance consumers as to the best title insurance underwriter for a particular transaction.” It said that CTIAs remove that choice and negatively impact a title insurance customer’s ability to meaningfully participate in his or her real estate settlement.

NAILTA also argued that title insurance customers are often unaware of variances in the standards of different title underwriters and the impact this variance has on the quality of the final title insurance product. Denying the choice of service to the title insurance customer “means the difference between eliminating risk and assuming it,” NAILTA said.

First American’s response

First American then filed a brief opposing NAILTA’s brief. The underwriter said that because the association was formed Dec. 1, 2008, it can’t be considered an industry spokesperson.

“Although it calls itself a national association, NAILTA’s membership is comprised of less than 40 individuals affiliated with less than two dozen title insurance agencies and one title insurance company in three Eastern states (New Jersey, Maryland and Pennsylvania) and two Mid-Western states (Ohio and Wisconsin) — a minute, and by no means representative, fraction of the title insurance industry in the nation,” First American stated in its filing.

First American claims NAILTA’s brief presents a distorted, misleading picture of the title insurance industry, adding the “proposed brief is replete with bald, unsupported contentions presented as though they were fact, but tethered to neither any evidence of record nor any reliable publications.”

NAILTA’s brief contends consolidation in the industry has “impacted the quality of the product.” First American said this assertion is not supported by any facts. First American pointed out that the plaintiff in the case makes no claim that her title insurance policy was deficient and does not claim the title search was incomplete or that there are any clouds on the title that were missed.

“Because there is absolutely no issue in this case about the quality of the title policy that Edwards received, NAILTA is ‘crying wolf’ and has failed to show that its argument about ‘standards’ for title searches or title policies are ‘relevant to the deposition of the case,’” First American said.

First American also said NAILTA’s description of the difference between independent title agencies and those that an underwriter holds an interest, has no basis in fact.

“The mere fact that a title agency — whether independently-owned or not, has an exclusive relationship with one title company does not mean that a consumer is not receiving the highest quality of service,” First American wrote.

First American pointed out that NAILTA’s office address is in care of Charles Proctor III, who is one of the association’s members. Proctor is a real estate attorney and title agent in Chadds Ford, Pa. His title agency, Industrial Valley Abstract Co., offers insurance for one title insurer, Stewart Title Guaranty Co. First American also stated in its response that NAILTA’s counsel of record, Gregory Happ, is also a real estate attorney and title agent, conducting both out of the same office in Medina, Ohio. Happ offers title insurance from General Title and Trust Co.

“When a home purchaser goes to Mr. Happ’s title agency, Mr. Happ will provide title insurance underwritten by General Title, not because Mr. Happ made a comparative judgment between two or more underwriters that General Title is best suited for that particular transaction, but because that is the only title insurer for which Mr. Happ is a title agent,” First American said. “This does not mean that Mr. Proctor or Mr. Happ (or First American, for that matter) is doing anything wrong. A homebuyer who goes to a title agency that represents only one title insurer no more expects that title agency to offer policies underwritten by several title insurers that a car buyer who goes to a Chevrolet dealership would expect to be sold a Toyota.”

NAILTA fires back

The trade association then responded to First American’s brief by arguing that its brief should be judged not by First American’s subjective standard whether NAILTA has been in existence long enough to merit its place in the industry, but rather on the objective standard of its ability to provide the court with unique information and perspective.

“First American’s opposition brief seeks to marginalize NAILTA and its members by denigrating the role of independent land title agents and also by attacking those individual members of NAILTA who have participated in this appeal,” NAILTA said in its response.

While First American contends searching standards are not pertinent to this case, NAILTA claims that First American’s searching practices are relevant because “it addresses the damage these practices have on both individual consumers and the title industry as a whole.”

According to NAILTA, First American in 2005 adopted a new “streamlined standard” for searches in Ohio that “sharply reduced the historic standards.”

NAILTA claims changes in searching standards ultimately led to First American paying more than $1 billion in claims losses and allocated loss expenses for title policies written in 2005, 2006 and 2007.

You Can’t Make this Stuff Up

You Can’t Make this Stuff Up

Posted on August 20, 2009 by livinglies
My Bad! Woman’s House Mistakenly Auctioned by Bank
By TODD WRIGHT
You know times are tough when people are getting kicked out of their house when it’s not even for sale. That’s what happened to Anna Ramirez after she found all of her stuff out on the front lawn of her Homestead home last week and a strange man demanding she get out of his newly purchased house. The eviction came after Ramirez’s home was mistakenly auctioned off to the highest bidder by her bank, Washington Mutual (yes, we know WaMu is now Chase, but we’re in denial). Usually, you get a warning before you get the boot. A foreclosure letter, maybe a sign saying your house is up for sale. Not Ramirez, who found her belongings bashed and battered in the street. “This came out of nowhere,” Ramirez said.
“The bank took the house from right under my feet.” The man who bought the house told Ramirez he paid $87,000 for it, which shocked Ramirez, who bought the house for $260,000. What’s worse is her husband, daughter and grand children were also kicked out by Homestead and Miami-Dade police officers, said Martha Taylor, who witnessed the unexpected eviction. “I have never seen anything like it,” Taylor said. “They literally threw all her stuff on the front lawn. I didn’t sleep that night and it wasn’t even my house.” Ramirez and her family had three hours to get out of the house, police ordered. They had to stash their belongings at multiple locations and shacked up with a friend for the night as cops chained the doors of their home.
With Taylor’s help, Ramirez appeared before a judge two days later to explain what happened. “I had all my stuff scattered everywhere,” she said. “They did this in front all my neighbors. It was so embarassing.” A mistake in the Miami-Dade Clerk’s Office appears to be behind the mishap, which landed Ramirez homeless for more than 24 hours. The sale was eventually reversed by a Miami-Dade judge, allowing Ramirez to return to her old digs. Ramirez said she wants to sue for the damage to her furniture. Ramirez has lived in the house for three years and recently refinanced the home with the bank. “This shouldn’t be happening, you know, because we did the right thing,” she said. “We went step by step.”

Connie Hill and June Reyno are kicking butt in CA

CALIFORNIA Homeowners are being stripped of their due process rights and continue to be thrown about like a ’sheep without a shepherd’ to help them stay and save their homes from wrongful foreclosure.

The Banks are NOT modifying loans unless it serves only the Bank/Mortgage Servicers financial interests and only according to their loan terms as our state legislative regulatory body tries to keep distressed homeowners inside their homes avoiding foreclosure. Repossession of the homeowner’s primary place of dwelling ensues through the court system whereby the courts and judges indiscriminately conclude that these homeowners deserve to be thrown out into the streets because they failed to pay their mortgage in default. These defaults emanated from the fraud that was perpetrated against the American taxpayers from Wall Street. It will potentially continue to do harm and injury to the lives and livelihood of [up to 60] millions more of American families across this country and the globe.

[COMPETENT & SKILLED] LAWYERS!! WE NEED YOU TO COME TO THE RESCUE!

Educated attorneys who attend this workshop and later “gets it” in order to successfully defend a non-judicial foreclosure sale involving securitized loans is like finding a pearl in an oyster shell as our organization is attempting to do while we help homeowners by publicly promoting this San Diego 1st Kick Off Event.

Will you please help us pass this timely invitation about the workshop to lawyers across the State of California, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Washington who have the desire, ability and skill to commit to helping the homeowners?

Our non-profit organization promotional efforts plans to expand to all the states over time so please don’t hesitate or limit yourself in sharing this vital information with lawyers across the country.

I recall contacting Attorney Jason L. Jones with Avatar Law Firm here in San Diego about my case and he declined to hear more. Lack of confidence maybe? He’s not alone. Hopefully this will change at the workshop.

The following is good news to share for all of us:

http://www.msfraud.org/CANCEL%20THE%20MORTGAGE-NOW.html

Kind Regards,
June Reyno, NAHJ Co-Founder
858-361-2399

Go to:

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2009/02/224425.php

www.MSfraud.org

______________

Requesting your favorable reply to attend from . . .

The NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF HOMEOWNERS FOR JUSTICE
Southern California Community Collaborative Anti-Foreclosure Seminar Project
Sunday (Homeowners) September 13th & 14th (Lawyers MCLE Credits )
FY 2009 Kick Off!
Sheraton Hotel, La Jolla, California

Co-Sponsor: Senator Darrell Steinberg is the president pro tempore-elect of the California State Senate.
Capitol Office Phone: (916) 651-4006 Fax: (916) 323-2263
State Capitol, Room 205
Sacramento, CA 95814

http://dist06.casen.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=NONE&SEC={917EAC61-0174-4FE1-A688-E58AE5668619}

Please kindly forward this timely public invitation to all citizens in the State of California, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, CONSUMER LAW & BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEYS & HOMEOWNER/RENTERS WHO ARE VICTIMS OF MORTGAGE SERVICING FRAUD

‘” Like an uninvited and unwelcome Santa Ana, American homeowners are reeling from a blast of illegal foreclosures and unlawful evictions. Tragically, while many have already turned in their keys, others are quickly learning if they can find fraud, they can forget foreclosure. The recently won class action predatory lending lawsuit, The People of California vs. Countrywide, which settled for $8.7 billion dollars, has been a wakeup call to many distressed homeowners now empowered to wage mortgage war. Homeowners already kicked out of their precious homes can file fraud claims as well. And there is plenty of fraud to go around: fraud in the solicitation, processing, closing, securitizing and servicing of toxic mortgages; fraud in the courtroom as lender’s attorneys file fraudulent foreclosures; fraud in the packaging, selling and credit ratings of mortgage backed securities; and fraud in the loan modifications of securitized loans. — Introduction, MORTGAGE WARS, IT’S TIME TO LOCK AND LOAD! By Iris Martin, Author of “MORTGAGE WARS: HOW YOU CAN FIGHT FRAUD AND REVERSE FORECLOSURE.’”

Sincerely,

Connie Hill, Founding Member
The Proud Mother & Wife of a Marine Veteran (In loving memory), Proud Grandmother, Educator, Entrepeneur, and Victim of Mortgage Fraud, Homeless (for over 2+ years)
916-439-4199

Countrywide decision: Investor is owner of Loan

Investors are saying the servicers should buy back the loans 100 cents on the dollar — because they don’t realize that the intermediary pretender lenders have (1) already made a ton of money on marking up the price of the loan based upon fictitious income and (2) made pornographic profits buying credit default swaps that effectively insured the loan 20-30 times over.

In order for there to be payment on CDS there must be a default event. There is nothing better to establish defaults than a foreclosure. So even though neither of the real parties in interest want a foreclosure, they have one anyway leaving the borrower fighting an uphill battle (which is getting easier every day as decisions like this one come out) and the investor in the dark who really doesn’t get where all the money went nor how much money there was —- they still think that most of their $25 million investments went to fund mortgage loans.

They do not understand that around 35-50% of their money went into the pockets of the intermediary pretender lenders and that the loan was insured many times over leaving a financial incentive to originate loans that were guaranteed to fail and a financial incentive to foreclose even if they have no right to do so. These intermediaries don’t want the investor getting into the game because the lawyers and accountants for the hedge funds and pension funds would eventually catch on — that for every dollar that was funded there was 35-50 cents in profit to investment bankers and 30 dollars in insurance paid. They do not want that money going to either the investor or the borrower where it belongs.

BofA’s Countrywide loses court ruling on mortgages — Modifications Not Authorized By Investor May be Invalid
There is lots of significance about this decision. First it shows that if the investor is going to sue it is going to be against the intermediary pretender lenders and not the borrower — because they don’t want to expose themselves to liability for predatory loan tactics, usury, securities violations, TILA, RESPA and HOEPA violations. Second it shows that as we have said all along here, the servicers don’t have the right or authority to actually negotiate and execute a loan modification. And third it shows that the investor who bought bonds that were mortgage backed securities are the OWNERS OF THE LOAN.

This decision is essentially fatal to ALL foreclosure actions based upon securitized loans. It identifies the investors as the owners of the loan and negates the alleged authority of intermediary pretender lenders to do ANYTHING in the way of enforcement, modification, collection through legal means etc. because they simply have no standing (because the alleged debt is not owed to anyone other than the investor). The foundation is crumbling. These decisions are coming out one after the other because of a simple fact — the tacit deal between Wall Street and loan servicers and loan data administrators (MERS) may exist, but it has no legal effect without the investor and the borrower signing on to these new terms with extra conditions and co-obligors.

August 20, 2009, 7:42 am NEW YORK (Reuters) – A federal judge has ruled that Bank of America Corp (NYSE:BAC – News) cannot have a lawsuit by investors seeking to force it to buy back mortgages heard in federal court, saying he lacks jurisdiction to decide the case. Tuesday’s ruling by Judge Richard Holwell of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan means the case will move to state court. Holwell did not decide the merits of the case. “Congress passed two statutes within a year of each other to address the mortgage crisis,” the judge wrote. “In neither of these statutes did Congress federalize the case.”

The ruling is a win for investors, to the extent that Holwell rejected a claim by the bank’s Countrywide Financial Corp unit that new federal laws to encourage loan modifications to help struggling borrowers stay in their homes govern this case. Countrywide had argued that the laws negated obligations it might have had to buy back modified loans. In 2008, Countrywide agreed with some 11 state attorneys general to modify $8.4 billion of loans made to roughly 400,000 borrowers.Investors who own mortgage securities typically receive interest and principal payments. If servicers modified the underlying loans to reduce borrower obligations, investors would be harmed because they would receive lower payments.

Holwell did rule that investors bear the burden of showing that pooling and servicing agreements for their loans, taken “as a whole,” require Countrywide to buy back the loans.Bank of America could not immediately be reached for comment. A published report said a spokeswoman agreed that the court did not rule on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.The current case was brought by two investment funds holding Countrywide mortgages, Greenwich Financial Services Distressed Mortgage Fund 3 LLC and QED LLC. These investors complained they would be harmed if Countrywide shifted the burdens of loan modifications to 374 trusts into which loans had been repackaged and securitized.

These investors would rather Countrywide repurchase modified loans for the full unpaid amounts. Countrywide had been the largest U.S. mortgage lender before Bank of America acquired it last July for $2.5 billion. The case is Greenwich Financial Services Distressed Mortgage Fund 3 LLC and QED LLC v. Countrywide Financial Corp, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan), No. 08-11343. rule that investors bear the burden of showing that pooling and servicing agreements for their loans, taken “as a whole,” require Countrywide to buy back the loans.Bank of America could not immediately be reached for comment. A published report said a spokeswoman agreed that the court did not rule on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.The current case was brought by two investment funds holding Countrywide mortgages, Greenwich Financial Services Distressed Mortgage Fund 3 LLC and QED LLC. These investors complained they would be harmed if Countrywide shifted the burdens of loan modifications to 374 trusts into which loans had been repackaged and securitized.These investors would rather Countrywide repurchase modified loans for the full unpaid amounts. Countrywide had been the largest U.S. mortgage lender before Bank of America acquired it last July for $2.5 billion. The case is Greenwich Financial Services Distressed Mortgage Fund 3 LLC and QED LLC v. Countrywide Financial Corp, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan), No. 08-11343.

it gets better

Skip to Navigation
Home

ACORN Funder JPMorgan Chase Doesn’t Look Good in New Madoff Book
Submitted by Peter Flaherty on Mon, 08/10/2009 – 13:48
Email to friendEmail to friendPrinter-friendlyPrinter-friendly

Madoff bookA new book by Barron’s reporter Erin Arvedlund asserts that banking giant JPMorgan Chase became aware of Madoff’s Ponzi scheme months before his arrest, prompting the bank to liquidate its positions in a Madoff-related fund. Yet, the bank continued to accept deposits into Madoff’s main account at the bank from unsuspecting investors who were about to lose everything.

NLPC is a critic of JPMorgan Chase’s support for political and social causes that are contrary to the bank’s interests and hostile to the capitalist system itself, such as ACORN. Although these new revelations are a separate controversy, both reflect an apparent willingness by the firm to work with shady enterprises if it is perceived to be in its own interest.

The book is titled Too Good to be True. Excerpts appeared in Barron’s over the weekend. Arvedlund has a great deal of credibility on anything Madoff-related, having written a story in 2001 suggesting that Madoff’s consistent record of returns was suspect.

The only good thing that can be said about JPMorgan Chase is that, like Arvedlund, it was perceptive enough to smell the Madoff rat. But unlike Arvedlund, who tried to sound the alarm, JPMorgan Chase kept quiet and tried to protect itself.

Arvedlund explains:

In 2006, JPMorgan Chase developed a derivative product for its wealthy clients. It was linked to the Fairfield Sentry Fund offered by the Madoff feeder Fairfield Greenwich. The bank offered investors — mostly in Europe — a note that paid three times the earnings, or returns, of the Sentry Fund. The note matured in five years. To hedge its risk on the derivative product, the bank invested in the Sentry Fund itself. This way, if the Sentry Fund did well, the bank’s returns would offset its obligation on the notes.

By the summer of 2008, JPMorgan Chase had deposited $250 million with the Sentry Fund. With the financial meltdown on Wall Street and around the world in full swing, most of the markets were down 30% or more, and yet the Sentry Fund reported gains of 5%. JPMorgan Chase began to grow suspicious.

As a result:

In September 2008, JPMorgan Chase quietly liquidated its entire $250 million position in the Sentry Fund, even though it remained liable on the derivatives it had sold to the wealthy clients. At the time, the Fairfield Sentry investment notes were showing a 5% gain for the year. The bank had concluded Madoff was a phony, and the only way to protect itself was to liquidate anything connected with Madoff.

When JPMorgan Chase bought what was left of Bear Stearns last year, it inherited a relationship with Madoff that is also sure to raise more questions about its ethics. According to Arvedlund:

Brokers who traded at Bear Stearns used the firm’s automated equity order system to buy and sell stocks. A broker would enter the stock symbol and the number of shares he or she wanted to trade. The system was supposed to do the rest: work to find the best counterparty to trade with from among the many market makers that traded with Bear Stearns. However, for Nasdaq stocks, Bear Stearns had an unwritten code: the system automatically defaulted to trade with Madoff.

Madoff reportedly paid Bear Stearns substantial fees for this default setting on their equity order system, and he may have paid other customers to do the same as well. Between 2000 and 2008, Bear Stearns’ 400 or so brokers all used this system, and all their Nasdaq trades defaulted to Madoff. It was a big source of revenue for Madoff, and it vaulted Bear Stearns to a position as the largest counterparty trading with Madoff. The arrangement was in place when Bear Stearns went under in early 2008, and it continued under JPMorgan Chase.

JPMorgan Chase and/or the JPMorgan Chase Foundation are major funders of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and related organizations. ACORN is a network of as many as 360 organizations, structured to escape accountability, a network far more complicated than anything Madoff ever constructed.

ACORN has had its own embezzlement scandal. Dale Rathke, the brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke, stole nearly $1 million in 1999 and 2000. ACORN treated the crime as an internal matter and did not even notify its board. A whistle-blower made it public. Dale Rathke remained on ACORN’s payroll until June 2008.

According to its 2007 tax return (the most recent available), the JPMorgan Chase Foundation made a million-dollar gift to ACORN Housing, Inc. that year. This donation is likely the tip of the iceberg of the bank’s total support of ACORN. JPMorgan Chase is one of ACORN largest corporate backers, if not the largest. JPMorgan Chase can take a step toward accountability by disclosing the specifics of its support for ACORN.

Last fall, JPMorgan Chase accepted $25 billion in taxpayer TARP funds. In 2008, the top 200 bonus recipients at JPMorgan Chase received $1.12 billion. The firm had 1,144 employees who received a bonus of least $1 million last year, more than any other Wall Street firm.

You would think with all these millionaires walking around the company, there would be at least a passing acknowledgement of the wealth generation potential of a free economy. Not a chance. CEO Jamie Dimon sneers at free market advocates. The firm funds a variety of anti-business activists, ACORN being just the most dramatic example.

Dimon is apparently not self-conscious either about ACORN’s role in the residential mortgage crisis, much of it driven by subprime lending. Starting in the Seventies, ACORN saw the big banks as shakedown targets. The weak-kneed executives at these institutions were pretty easy pickings.

ACORN screamed “racism.” It accused mortgage lenders of “redlining,” or denying credit to borrowers in certain areas. It picketed the homes of bank directors in leafy suburbs.
A way out was offered to the banks. They could make contributions to ACORN and/or they could “invest” in ACORN Housing, which made loans to “underserved” borrowers.

They also could back off from opposition to a law called the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 that required banks and thrifts to lend more money from areas where they took deposits. It meant more loans to “underserved” communities, and a loosening of lending standards.

Of course, many of ACORN’s “deserving” borrowers were not deserving at all. Increasingly, the banks dumped the loans on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were under pressure by Congressmen like Barney Frank (D-MA) to make more loans to the “underserved.”

The result was the mortgage meltdown that nearly took down our entire financial system, providing the justification for the massive bailouts of the banks. But Dimon acts like JMorgan Chase has no culpability because of its “solid” balance sheet.

According to Arvedlund, there are already civil suits against JPMorgan Chase by investors whose funds were acccepted into Madoff’s account at the bank after it had concluded that Madoff was a fraud. Of course, this may also be criminal, but there is no word that the bank is the target of a criminal investigation.

During the campaign, Dimon was a vocal supporter of Barack Obama. On July 18, the New York Times called Dimon “Obama’s favorite banker.” Dimon may hope that this relationship will insulate his firm from prosecution in the Madoff case. In any event, JPMorgan Chase’s culture must be questioned, along with Dimon’s credibility and leadership.

* ACORN
* Barney Frank
* Bear Stearns
* Bernard Madoff
* Corporate Integrity Project
* Dale Rathke
* Erin Arvedlund
* Fairfield Greenwich
* Jamie Dimon
* JPMorgan Chase
* JPMorgan Chase Foundation
* Sentry Fund
* Wade Rathke

* Peter Flaherty’s blog

* Home
* About Us
* Current Projects
* Contact Us
* RSS

report-corruption.jpg donate.jpg planned-giving.jpg
Site Search

*
Charlie Rangel
NLPC Exposes Rangel
*
Image: Uncle Sam hat with money flowing out of it
Bailout Corruption
*
Corporate Shakedowns
*
NLPC in the News
Earmark Scandals

Recent Stories

* Rail Transportation Local Treasurer in Ohio Charged with Embezzlement
* Security Employees Secretary in Georgia Pleads Guilty to Embezzlement
* Western Pennsylvania Communications Workers Treasurer Pleads Guilty
* UNITE HERE Secretary-Treasurer in Cincinnati Charged with Embezzlement
* Pittsburgh-Area Steelworkers Secretary Sentenced
* Postal Workers Local President in Indiana Charged with Theft
* Nevada Teamsters Office Manager Indicted for Theft
* Former San Antonio Electrical Workers Official Indicted for Embezzlment
* NYC Contractor, Consultant Sentenced for Scams; Contractor V.P. Pleads Guilty
* New Mexico Commission Employee Did Time for Union Thefts

more

Copyright © 1996-2009 National Legal and Policy Center. Privacy Policy

Designed by Dialog New Media

Is MERS Deed VOID?

Posted on August 18, 2009 by livinglies

From Kevin A McKenna. A very good explanation about MERS and nominees. Note especially the reference to creating two entities to exercise collection and foreclosure instead of one thus reinforcing the argument of financial double jeopardy. The MERS deed would therefore be void, as he says. Thus there would be no security, probably no note and maybe no obligation either if the “Lender” was paid in full at closing by a third party in the securitization chain or if the derivative products were sold and insured.
Note also this Quote from Kevin: Those provisions are strictly construed against MERS putative conveyance since the statutory provisions are in derogation of common law.
Under R.I. Law it is my opinion that any purported action in the name of MERS is a break in the chain of title and is void.
The customized form of Mortgage deed utilized by the Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems Inc., (MERS), Paragraph C and the grantee clause in particular, is not entitled to any of the R.I. statutory mortgagee protections provided in the provisions of Title 34 of the R.I. General Laws.
A “Nominee” “Mortgagee” is simply not entitled to the statutory benefits of Title 34. Those provisions are strictly construed against MERS putative conveyance since the statutory provisions are in derogation of common law. For example, MERS mortgagee deeds have two entities exercising the same statutory foreclosure powers. R.I. law only protects the actual “holders” of the mortgage deed or their statutory “assigns ”, not “nominees” which nominees only have a role with stocks and bonds. MERS argues, in a futile exercise of nominalism, that splitting the term “mortgagee” from the “lender” has a benefit to itself. MERS mortgage deeds are defective because the R.I. Statutory protections run to functional powers of the “holders” of the mortgage and of the mortgage notes, not to self defined “nominees”.
Nominees are not eligible to hold future interests in property without statutory assignments. Only R.I. statutory assignees can exercise the functional abilities necessary to gain control of the five (5) statutory elements required to provide a clean title at the end of the process. R.I. Statutory protections run to the “holders” of the mortgages, not their nominees. The provisions of R.I.G.L.§34-11-12 (4) on mortgage deeds, R.I.G.L.§ 34-11-12 (5) on mortgage releases, R.I.G.L.§ 34-11-12 (6) on form assignments, R.I.G.L.§ 34-11-12 (7) on foreclosure powers, and R.I.G.L.§ 34-11-12 (8) on sale powers ONLY protect the “holders” of the mortgage, not their putative “nominees”. . When MERS does not have an actual separate written and recorded conveyances from the actual holder of the mortgage to itself prior to MERS making a conveyance, the conveyance is void. MERS by its own description in paragraph C is not contractually able to perform the statutory functions of the “holder” of the mortgagee. Mortgage Electronic Registration System Incorporated, as a putative nominee, selected by the Mortgagor, usually lacks actual recorded authority from the Holder of the Mortgage by way of a recorded assignment (R.I.G.L.§ 34-11-12 (6)) or a recorded power of an attorney. Mortgage Electronic Registration System Incorporated can not be by its own definition by be a “holder” of the mortgage deed. Mortgage Electronic Registration System Incorporated did not own or possess or control the mortgage note which was necessary to enforce the mortgage deed. R.I.G.L§ 6A-3-301.