Exclusive, insightful audio interviews by our staff with banking/security leading practitioners and thought-leaders. Transcripts are also available on our site!
Manage episode 269150162 series 2453550
Player FM과 저희 커뮤니티의 THE NEIL GARFIELD SHOW 콘텐츠는 모두 원 저작자에게 속하며 Player FM이 아닌 작가가 저작권을 갖습니다. 오디오는 해당 서버에서 직접 스트리밍 됩니다. 구독 버튼을 눌러 Player FM에서 업데이트 현황을 확인하세요. 혹은 다른 팟캐스트 앱에서 URL을 불러오세요.
The simple fact that lies at the root of most foreclosures is that the underlying obligation was never purchased or sold, and in most cases not even from the homeowner. The fact that the homeowner recieved money is not conclusive that the reason the hoemowner received money is that it was part of a valid loan agreement. If lawyers and homeowners want to win cases filed for enforcement of mortgages or deed of trust (foreclosures) then they must understand and use the fact that the homeowner agreed to two contracts --- not one. Operating parrallel to the apparent loan agreement was a concealed securitization agreement. Both are fatally deficient (unenforceable) unless they are combined into one agreement through the legal (equitable) process of reformation. The loan agreement is fatally deficient because it purposely fails to establish an actual loan account in which the underlying debt is owned as an asset on the financial statement of some person or company. This is how the investment bank funds what appears to be a loan without ever being disclosed as a lender. Since it never receives any conveyance of the debt, note or rmotgage it is not lender and therefore not subject to any laws governing lending or servicing. But since it in fact funded the transaction but refuses to be considered a lender, the transaction is not a loan but rather something else. And because it removes every trace of funding trhough a bogus sale to itself acting under the name of a fake trust, it can't call itself a successor either. In plain langauge there was no meeting of the minds and therefore no valid loan contract and no valid securitization contract.