Supporting, Informing & Connecting People in Foreclosure
Finding info from the net in general and other sites I offer the following.
In order to maintain the integrity of the real estate mortgage backed security(RMBS) investment or securitization vehicles such as trusts, remic's etc. that your loan is/was a part of you must look at the MANDATED procedure to extract a defaulted mortgage from the pool. You may see (most probably) that your loan has mortgage insurance and is declared PAID IN FULL on default. In other words a third party interest has paid off the note completing your contract, after the fact, when foreclosure action is completed by the court. The note, being satisfied, should be returned to you PAID IN FULL to protect you from pretender lenders or others.
The BANK AND ITS ATTORNEY KNOW/KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN this and that they are, in fact, initiating a foreclosure action under a mortgage contract for non payment that will confirm default and trigger the insurance paying your obligation in full, not market value, finding them UNDUE ENRICHMENT. As it is the mill presenting to the court, "if" fraud is present, then the mill is guilty of presenting such to the courts and cannot be denied.
Pretty slick really and with the HO necessarily foreclosed and out of the picture the bank collects the full loan amount due plus the property to sell again. Also, there is sure to have been activity in the Credit Default Swap arena, also triggered by foreclosure, and other incentives involved that give banks a better position in taxation and allowing increased leverage. This up to 30 times, and more, of reserves against mortgage transactions. The more loans given, the more money available to loan, the more foreclosures and perpetuation of the scam.
No wonder the insurance companies (think AIG, MBIA, etc.) the GSE's, the banks and all the big players are in litigation. So what came first the chicken (mortgage contract) or the egg (insurance). Understanding the nature of the scam they both appeared at the same time, one dependant on the other. What with insurance GUARANTEEING payment in full ANYONE could get a loan and all loans were insured. Then, as we all know, these loans were DESIGNED TO FAIL. Fog a mirror ... get a loan. What I state here is being said in court by the insurance companies and their outcome will directly affect all who read this.
Keeping robosigning, securitization, standing, blue ink, who got the note and all other such issues aside and considering that all paperworks were done legally and all rules followed, the very structure of the investment found no risk and guaranteed higher reward in foreclosure than mods or redemptions incentivizing both the bank and it's mill attorney to pursue/force foreclosure. The elusive perfect investment. No wonder the banks were urging people to stop paying to find access to HAMP program and then reneging. It is as if they sold you a car at the top of a hill with a "pretty good idea" the brakes would fail and taking insurance that you would get into an accident (mod) or total the car (be foreclosed).
The brakes might be equated as the underwriting standards and the ability of the ratings agencies to give AAA ratings to all ... turning straw into gold. The banks attorney refused my payment in full on amounts I had been given and agreed to with them. I have e mail from David Trott, owner of the mill, refusing. He also owns or has interest in many other mortgage "default" concerns across the country that find him undue enrichment. These are inclusive of real estate, title agency, Legal News, Dolan Media/NDEX and more. He was so fearful that I would expose him that he found a cocked up excuse to have me put in jail.
Question ... is this inherently illegal or just slick banking/lawyering ?