|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Month: December 2013
RESEARCH: This squarely disprove and nullify the holdings of various courts around the country which have taken the position that the borrower “is not a party to” the securitization
From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 9:33 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: RESEARCH: This squarely disprove and nullify the holdings of various courts around the country which have taken the position that the borrower “is not a party to” the securitization
US BANK ADMITS THE BORROWER IS A PARTY TO AN MBS TRANSACTION
Jeff Barnes, Esq. wrote: "We have been provided with a copy of U.S. Bank Global Corporate Trust Services’ “Role of the Corporate Trustee” brochure which makes certain incredible admissions, several of which squarely disprove and nullify the holdings of various courts around the country which have taken the position that the borrower “is not a party to” the securitization and is thus not entitled to discovery or challenges to the mortgage loan transfer process." The second page sets forth that U.S. Bank, as Trustee, “does not have any discretion or authority in the foreclosure process.” If this is true, how can U.S. Bank as Trustee be the Plaintiff in judicial foreclosures or the foreclosing party in non-judicial foreclosures if it has “no authority in the foreclosure process”?
http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=533
MS Fraud version of brochure:
http://www.msfraud.org/LAW/Lounge/U_S_BANK_Brochure_Borrower-is-a-party_9-13.pdf
Actual source of brochure: https://www.usbank.com/pdf/community/Role-of-Trustee-Sept2013.pdf (and attached).
Borrowers ARE parties to the securitization
From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 1:39 PM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Borrowers ARE parties to the securitization
See page 5 and the chart on page 8 in the OCC Manual; and as admitted by US Bank in their brochure.
Charles
Charles Wayne Cox
Email: mailto:Charles
Websites: www.BayLiving.com; www.FdnPro.com and www.ForensicLoanAnalyst.com
1969 Camellia Ave.
Medford, OR 97504-5403
(541) 727-2240 direct
(541) 610-1931 eFax
Paralegal; Litigation Support and Expert Witness Services; Forensic Loan Analyst; CA Licensed Real Estate Broker.
OCC Asset Securitization.pdf
Role-of-Trustee-Sept2013 US Bank.pdf
Adam Levitin | ABSTRACT | The Paper Chase: Securitization, Foreclosure, and the Uncertainty of Mortgage Title
From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 3:32 PM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Adam Levitin | ABSTRACT | The Paper Chase: Securitization, Foreclosure, and the Uncertainty of Mortgage Title
THE PAPER CHASE:
SECURITIZATION, FORECLOSURE, AND THE
UNCERTAINTY OF MORTGAGE TITLE
ADAM J. LEVITIN†
ABSTRACT
The mortgage foreclosure crisis raises legal questions as important as its economic impact. Questions that were straightforward and uncontroversial a generation ago today threaten the stability of a $13 trillion mortgage market: Who has standing to foreclose? If a foreclosure was done improperly, what is the effect? And what is the proper legal method for transferring mortgages? These questions implicate the clarity of title for property nationwide and pose a too big-to-fail problem for the courts.
The legal confusion stems from the existence of competing systems for establishing title to mortgages and transferring those rights. Historically, mortgage title was established and transferred through the “public demonstration” regimes of UCC Article 3 and land recordation systems. This arrangement worked satisfactorily when mortgages were rarely transferred. Mortgage finance, however, shifted to securitization, which involves repeated bulk transfers of mortgages.
To facilitate securitization, deal architects developed alternative “contracting” regimes for mortgage title: UCC Article 9 and MERS, a private mortgage registry. These new regimes reduced the cost of securitization by dispensing with demonstrative formalities, but at the expense of reduced clarity of title, which raised the costs of mortgage enforcement. This trade-off benefited the securitization industry at the expense of securitization investors because it became apparent only subsequently with the rise in mortgage foreclosures. The harm, however, has not been limited to securitization investors. Clouded
Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Announces $300 Million Settlement with JP Morgan Chase
From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:11 PM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Announces $300 Million Settlement with JP Morgan Chase
Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Announces $300 Million Settlement with JP Morgan Chase
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Contact: (415) 703-5837
SAN FRANCISCO – Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today announced a settlement with J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. over its misrepresentations in residential mortgage-backed securities sold to California’s public employee and teacher pension funds, CalPERS and CalSTRS, between 2004 and 2008.
According to the terms of the settlement, California will recover $298,973,000 in damages.
“JP Morgan Chase profited by giving California’s pension funds incomplete information about mortgage investments,” Attorney General Harris said. “This settlement returns the money to California’s pension funds that JP Morgan wrongfully took from them.”
An investigation conducted by Attorney General Harris showed that offering documents for the securities failed to accurately disclose the true characteristics of many of the underlying mortgages, and that due diligence to weed out poor quality loans had not been adequately performed.
The broader settlement reached today by the United States Department of Justice and other federal and state agencies totals $13 billion, and represents the largest settlement with a single entity in American history.
CalPERS and CalSTRS will be reimbursed through this settlement for losses on investments in mortgage-backed securities of J.P. Morgan Chase or its predecessors Washington Mutual Bank and Bear Stearns.
J.P. Morgan Chase will also provide $4 billion in relief to aid consumers across the country, including Californians, harmed by the unlawful conduct of J.P. Morgan Chase, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual. That relief will take various forms, including principal forgiveness, loan modification, targeted originations and efforts to reduce blight. An independent monitor will be appointed to determine whether J.P. Morgan Chase is satisfying its obligations.
The settlement related to California’s pension funds arises from the investigation into mortgage-backed securities by Attorney General Harris’s Mortgage Fraud Strike Force, which was formed in May 2011 to comprehensively investigate misconduct in the mortgage industry. The Attorney General’s additional efforts to investigate the mortgage crisis include securing an estimated $20 billion for California in the National Mortgage Settlement and sponsoring the California Homeowner Bill of Rights, a package of laws instituting permanent mortgage-related reforms.
For more information on the U.S. DOJ settlement visit: http://www.justice.gov/
# # #
The Hedge 