Florida Judge's Order stops foreclosure

[soryang]

Found this court case in an article on nakedcapitalism.com describing the defective nature of some Pooling and Servicing Agreements:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/

Adam Levitin Shreds American Securitization Forum Defenses
....

For readers who have not followed this wee saga, mortgage securitization abuses are increasingly looking to be a mess of Titanic proportions. The securitization industry created complex and specific procedures for getting the loans into the securitization legal vehicle, a trust. (The loan, meaning the borrower IOU, is called the note; confusingly, the lien is separate and called a mortgage or in some states, a deed of trust).

These procedures were complex for very good legal reasons. These securitizations had to pick their way very carefully through a thicket of issues: state-based real estate law; the Uniform Commercial Code; the desire to create bankruptcy remoteness (so if the originator went bust, the investors would not be exposed to the risk of lenders to the originator trying to get the notes back out of the trust); securities regulations; tax law; trust law.

These provisions were adhered to for nearly two decades. But sometime in the early 2000s, it appears that the industry simply quit observing the requirements of its own contracts, called pooling and servicing agreements. And the worst is that there are no simple fixes for the resulting mess.

...


The Naked Capitalism article goes on to link to the Florida Circuit Court Order on a Motion to Dismiss by the Defendant in a foreclosure proceeding, where the motion is apparently granted due to defects in the Plaintiff's pleadings and a chain of endorsement defect in the mortgage.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/44683998/Order-for-BAC-Home-Loans-Servicing-v-Stentz

Order in Bac Home Loans Servicing L.P. F/K/A Countrywide Home Loans Servicing L.P. v. Bill Stentz

[geckosfeet]

1. 'chain of endorsement defect in the mortgage' - every real estate lawyer

in the country should be cashing in on this.

Hell. By the sounds of it a cottage industry run by para-legals could be getting a lot of people out of debt and owning their homes free and clear.

[aquart]

3. Which may hurt bank bonuses but will benefit communities and Main Street.

I want to force those bastards to drop those bonuses. They will amp their fees a mile high before they do, they will blackmail our government, they will send their children in rags to solicit senators but they can be marched back to reasonable profit margins by determined judges and a few pitchforks and torches.

[aquart]

2. And the precedents begin to pile up.

[soryang]

4. Technical Difficulties

Technical Diffulties

John T. Kemp v. Countrywide Home Loans – Countrywide NEVER Transferred Notes
Posted by Foreclosure Fraud


http://4closurefraud.org/2010/11/22/john-t-kemp-v-countrywide-home-loans-countrywide-never-transferred-notes/


First from Naked Capitalism… (Yves Smith financial consultant)

Countrywide Admits to Not Conveying Notes to Mortgage Securitization Trusts
Testimony in a New Jersey bankruptcy court case provides proof of the scenario we’ve depicted on this blog since September, namely, that subprime originators, starting sometime in the 2004-2005 timeframe, if not earlier, stopped conveying note (the borrower IOU) to mortgage securitization trust as stipulated in the pooling and servicing agreement. Professor Adam Levitin in his testimony before the House Financial Services Committee last week described what the implications would be:

If mortgages were not properly transferred in the securitization process, then mortgage-backed securities would in fact not be backed by any mortgages whatsoever. The chain of title concerns stem from transactions that make assumptions about the resolution of unsettled law. If those legal issues are resolved differently, then there would be a failure of the transfer of mortgages into securitization trusts, which would cloud title to nearly every property in the United States and would create contract rescission/putback liabilities in the trillions of dollars, greatly exceeding the capital of the US’s major financial institutions….

Recently, arguments have been raised in foreclosure litigation about whether the notes and mortgages were in fact properly transferred to the securitization trusts. This is a critical issue because the trust has standing to foreclose if, and only if it is the mortgagee. If the notes and mortgages were not transferred to the trust, then the trust lacks standing to foreclose…

If the notes and mortgages were not properly transferred to the trusts, then the mortgage-backed securities that the investors’ purchased were in fact non-mortgage-backed securities...

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. thanks to E. Warren, the white house did not stab

us in the back to protect these fraudsters retroactively.