6) If the investor can prove the rest of what is unpaid fair market value of the property is owed to him, then he can ask to be named as the beneficiary or party in interest and identified as such to the trust deed holder or holder of the mortgage. An agreement can then be made to make payments without interest until the remaining principal is paid off. This can be done through an escrow trust.
The banks have already made their fees and have no right to any more payments because they have refused to make them to the investor who has already paid for them in full to the bank. That lender is committing larceny by false pretenses or grand theft or conversion, and has been doing so for as long as payments have been made and not transferred to the authentic beneficiary.
That means they are defrauding both the borrower and the investor. What is really a crock is that the banker is still pointing the finger at the toxic little loans that were completely unjust -- that the Banker had constructed himself with the expectation that he would not have to produce the note with a loan that was so full of early pitfalls.
However, if as suspected, these security instruments were sold on the derivatives market, there is a really good chance that they were sold for the same price more than once to different investors. Without recording and title insurance, there is no way to follow the chain of title to the holder of the interest. Furthermore, if there is a conveyance to an entity
Called M.E.R.S. there is also a good chance, again, that there is no way to find the beneficiary.
7) The difference between what is owed and what has already been paid to the bank should be the responsibility of the bank that has been collecting the payments from the borrower all this time. Those monies should be paid to the authentic investor as well as their fees back as damages.
Moreover, the banks have already been paid at least once by the investor and probably once from the bailout and possibly once more by an insurance company. And, last but not least, the original purchase money was unearned by the bank in the first place! So why are borrowers still making payments to the bank when the bank has sold the rights to those payments already?
There is also the fact that the investors knew there were risks involved in these markets which were disclosed even if there was some major fraud involved in assessment of how much risk. Furthermore, foreign investors have to remember that it's America's tax dollars through TARP that bailed out their foreign banks. How many hits are the American people expected to take?
Homeowners were lied to; defrauded, and never asked to sign off on the original assignment because no one is going to knowingly assign away their bundle of rights on the most important investment in their lives and property that they are paying for. The bankers committed conversion when they securitized those mortgages without disclosure and guarantees to both parties on either end of the transaction.
8) The note should have been put in escrow along with the monthly payments as a guarantee to the investor in case of default. Servicing fees should have been paid to the trustee and nothing else should have been paid to the bank which has an obvious conflict and no discernible or provable interest.
Furthermore, the original borrower (homeowner) should have been paid for the accommodation that had been unwittingly made of the assignment of the asset and for the profits made on that asset. This is what should be done now. Furthermore, the escrow can be set up if the beneficiary can be found and the title repaired.
9) The remedy for conversion of an asset, stock or cash that was not theirs to take in the first place and that which they have leveraged to make a profit, belongs, by law, to the original owner of that converted asset. The profits made off of the converted asset are the damages that would be due to the victim of the conversion, and that would be the homeowner.
Furthermore, when a cloud was put on the title through the unlawful actions of the bank, the property was rendered not freely alienable which destroyed its value. Real property in the case of a single family home owes much of its value to the owner's ability to freely sell it, transfer it, refinance it, to leverage it for other investments, and so on.
To do that, the title must be held in fee simple absolute and free of any cloud where there is another interest out there which could pop up at any time, yet cannot be identified and the lien satisfied. Therefore, it is possible to keep paying the wrong entity and then the authentic beneficiary could still have a claim for full payment.
At this point however no one has a better claim to the home than the homeowner who can prove "constructive interest" of ownership through occupying the property, keeping the insurance and maintenance up and paying the property taxes.
What about all the payments that have been going to the bank that has no right to the payment and has not only already been paid for the mortgage but is not passing the payment on to the investor? In this case, the bank is defrauding both homeowner and investor. Furthermore, how is the lender going to make good on the note it converted without the borrower's knowledge or permission?
10) The homeowner should not be the one being kicked around by the banks, the law or by society. Many have cases for suing the banks involved for fraud in the inducement, fraud in the facts because of the inflated value and illegal costs, fees and manipulation that reduced the borrower's ability to refinance or sell the property and conversion through prevention of performance on the original agreement by the willful destruction of the value of the subject matter of that agreement.
The banks have already made their fees and have no right to any more payments because they have refused to make them to the investor who has already paid for them in full to the bank. That lender is committing larceny by false pretenses or grand theft or conversion, and has been doing so for as long as payments have been made and not transferred to the authentic beneficiary.
That means they are defrauding both the borrower and the investor. What is really a crock is that the banker is still pointing the finger at the toxic little loans that were completely unjust -- that the Banker had constructed himself with the expectation that he would not have to produce the note with a loan that was so full of early pitfalls.
However, if as suspected, these security instruments were sold on the derivatives market, there is a really good chance that they were sold for the same price more than once to different investors. Without recording and title insurance, there is no way to follow the chain of title to the holder of the interest. Furthermore, if there is a conveyance to an entity
Called M.E.R.S. there is also a good chance, again, that there is no way to find the beneficiary.
Moreover, the banks have already been paid at least once by the investor and probably once from the bailout and possibly once more by an insurance company. And, last but not least, the original purchase money was unearned by the bank in the first place! So why are borrowers still making payments to the bank when the bank has sold the rights to those payments already?
There is also the fact that the investors knew there were risks involved in these markets which were disclosed even if there was some major fraud involved in assessment of how much risk. Furthermore, foreign investors have to remember that it's America's tax dollars through TARP that bailed out their foreign banks. How many hits are the American people expected to take?
Homeowners were lied to; defrauded, and never asked to sign off on the original assignment because no one is going to knowingly assign away their bundle of rights on the most important investment in their lives and property that they are paying for. The bankers committed conversion when they securitized those mortgages without disclosure and guarantees to both parties on either end of the transaction.
8) The note should have been put in escrow along with the monthly payments as a guarantee to the investor in case of default. Servicing fees should have been paid to the trustee and nothing else should have been paid to the bank which has an obvious conflict and no discernible or provable interest.
Furthermore, the original borrower (homeowner) should have been paid for the accommodation that had been unwittingly made of the assignment of the asset and for the profits made on that asset. This is what should be done now. Furthermore, the escrow can be set up if the beneficiary can be found and the title repaired.
9) The remedy for conversion of an asset, stock or cash that was not theirs to take in the first place and that which they have leveraged to make a profit, belongs, by law, to the original owner of that converted asset. The profits made off of the converted asset are the damages that would be due to the victim of the conversion, and that would be the homeowner.
Furthermore, when a cloud was put on the title through the unlawful actions of the bank, the property was rendered not freely alienable which destroyed its value. Real property in the case of a single family home owes much of its value to the owner's ability to freely sell it, transfer it, refinance it, to leverage it for other investments, and so on.
To do that, the title must be held in fee simple absolute and free of any cloud where there is another interest out there which could pop up at any time, yet cannot be identified and the lien satisfied. Therefore, it is possible to keep paying the wrong entity and then the authentic beneficiary could still have a claim for full payment.
At this point however no one has a better claim to the home than the homeowner who can prove "constructive interest" of ownership through occupying the property, keeping the insurance and maintenance up and paying the property taxes.
What about all the payments that have been going to the bank that has no right to the payment and has not only already been paid for the mortgage but is not passing the payment on to the investor? In this case, the bank is defrauding both homeowner and investor. Furthermore, how is the lender going to make good on the note it converted without the borrower's knowledge or permission?
10) The homeowner should not be the one being kicked around by the banks, the law or by society. Many have cases for suing the banks involved for fraud in the inducement, fraud in the facts because of the inflated value and illegal costs, fees and manipulation that reduced the borrower's ability to refinance or sell the property and conversion through prevention of performance on the original agreement by the willful destruction of the value of the subject matter of that agreement.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
2
2
