One Response to “Home Loan Modification – Can You Save Your Home Today?”

1. MSoliman
   November 11th, 2009 @ 11:30 am

   The proper foreclosure defenses are anything but common in reference to pleas and repetitive RESPA violations and HUD related jargon. Where this expert and witness sees parties fail is not considering mortgage lender anti-fraud provisions. Those are likely enforced by the SEC due to homeowners and having employed the home as collateral in a registration and accredited Blue Sky.

   Consider the other components of investigation such as FIERRA passage by congress, FASB and FAS 140-3 and the Commission’s enforcement of 1122 AB

   After nearly eight years as an officer for a member Thrift I saw the switch over to a new authority and call to operating as a FSB under the Office of Thrift Supervision. Thus I left the thrift to join privately held companies who were now jumping into non-agency lending. These companies that were held private soon went public. They also went bust in 1998 when the market tanked and now we have come full circle back to the thrifts. But they are the biggest and best capitalized thrifts in the United States and in the World.

   All of this is accomplished and the expense of prior legislation to protect tax payers under FIERRRA. Long gone are Garn St Germain and Taft Hartley.

   Now it’s time to go after the homeowners and to punish our lenders with lucrative bail out capital and blinded, rampant foreclosure policies! Under the regulator authority of the OTS the Thrifts still cannot circumvent FIERRA and participate in high cost high risk lending. The Troubled Assets Relief Program adds a certain flavor of non compliance and more pressure into the mix. That will ultimately be their demise if I can get lawyers to listen.

   I am also concerned with the delays in the collections effort and the willingness for the lenders to NOT adhere to mandates offered under TARP and Ccc 2923.5. If fact, the claims you’re entitled to are being further circumvented by issues unrelated to trustor personal matters, such as a less than arms servicing agent or need for lenders to maintain distance in every workout.

   I opine there is the violation you’re missing. It is a devastating problem for the lender. Lenders and their servicing providers are non-compliant with GAAP and FASB and rules under 140-3 (Controlling assets upon which a sale would otherwise be declared voidable). They fail in their effort and may incur reporting problems.

   Therein you also have claims under 1122AB that are enforceable under the Commission’s (SEC) authority and enforcement divisions. There is a multitude of damaging “accountant’s attestation” reports we have discovered to establish these arguments for servicer violations.

   Recent news regarding AIG and insured warrants are subject to rumors firms such as Goldman Sachs received the funds (billions) indirectly from the government for relieving AIG of their responsibilities or liabilities. This makes no sense and if proven will further allow Wall Street to circumvent their liability to homeowners in favor of the investors who used their home as collateral for issuing and receiving valueless stock.

   This market is about enforcing your arguments and asserting your client’s rights were violated. Certain things remain unexplained in hope and anticipation they can better be revealed (as I am doing). The presupposition here is that the consumer homeowner has nothing to do with high powered Wall Street financial transactions and liabilities.

   If your client’s home is collateral used to obtain a loan then you do have a right to make a claim. My belief is their home and neighbors home are collateral provided to a registrant solely to create securities and to provide Wall Street its guarantees. This is the case whereby the collateral is pledged to an indenture and Trustee who is none other than another securitizing partner (Wells, LaSalle, Duetsche etc).

   The homes are the collective security for the parties owned by Wall Street or “obligor” to make pledges’ and access liquidity and profits far greater than if they toll an otherwise sick bank public or reassured their stock. But those capital stock issuances and pledges prohibit the obligor from recovering its own collateral (homes) while it must make good on default to borrowers. And those bulk asset pledged are offered from reckless acceptance practices under predatory guidelines.

   Now, to stem losses the obligor has a problem – because they sold your client loan. The sale must fail if the terms for a repo are established in advance or must be met under a recourse provision. These repo structured sale backs provide a three journey path to and from and back to the trust with no accounting value or real business purpose upon the initial and subsequent advance. It’s all for recognition purposes.

   Preventing this maligned and distorted means of cheating to continue is paramount to your success in fighting for a “work out” and seeking a remedy for a predatory loan made by intentional bad design.

   The exposure of deceptive practices and demand for imposing a halt to the sale of your client’s home or to prevent another unlawful foreclosure from proceeding is critical early on. Uncovering the financial madness translates into foreclose with no exceptions over seeking a remedy for a resolution to Corporate America’s problems.

   Our research tells us tells only a few Americans will survive this mess with home intact. And the rest will be forced to deal with the fact they lost their home to parties that were not entitled to foreclose on you. There are many questions the lender should at least answer without it appearing as only a stall tactic a trustee cannot see through.

   You must offer adequate support for a logical plan. My scholarly view is one should use the Bankruptcy filing for protection or courts to press these arguments for stripping the obligation from the lien or security. I will testify in a matter or adversary that a lender may have no standing for making good on a controlled sale of your clients home as a liquidation and sole means to avoid their own recourse provisions under a repurchase agreement.

   What you require is exemplar, evidential material, substance in your arguments and you can demonstrate that from the recovery notices that were filed improperly into county records by (who knows) someone that may not be authorized to represent the holder in due course.

   Consumer homeowners are outgunned and way over their heads and most of their arguments to date have failed subject to a toss of a coin and Judges temperament.

   This is my observation even though some information you have obtained and believe may actually lack merit. You have some of the pieces now but the puzzle is far from being assembled into a wining defense. You otherwise are merely prolonging the inevitable….a foreclosure sale.

   M.Soliman
   admin@borrowerhotline.com

Leave a Reply