The American Home Mortgage Appeal, Will The Real AHMSI Please Stand UP? (AND A SOOPER DOOPER, BONUS APPEAL, FREE OF CHARGE!)

7 Comments

• neidermeyer says:

  August 15, 2012 at 6:41 am

  Thanks , I’m fighting AHMSI (2nd version) pretending to be WF as Trustee..

  Reply
• DT says:

  August 15, 2012 at 8:47 am

  Hey Matt, here is a new book you might be interested in reading.
  Description
  What if you were not able to legally sell your home? Over 70-million American homes may be affected.
  Clouded Titles (new updated edition with case cites) exposes the mortgage scandal created by banker endorsed deregulation and MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems). The fraud is wide spread and millions of Americans have been affected. What is most frightening is that many of them don’t even know it yet.
  The aftermath of the 2008 housing bust is only now starting to surface. It may take a century of litigation and legislation to straighten out the mess caused in slightly more than a decade of chicanery. This book reveals the truth about the foreclosure crisis and outlines the reasons why millions of property owners across America may be forced to file a quiet title suit just to be able to convey clear title to their properties.
  The book covers the issues that borrowers and property owners are now facing as a result of this corporate corruption. It also guides homeowners with suggestions and ideas for seeking remedy in state courts, the only place in America with any saving grace. The author delves into the quiet title action and what it means to property owners with clouded titles. Clouded Titles will inform readers about foreclosure defense, strategic default, quiet title actions and county land record functions. It includes a detailed Index and Table of Case Citations and comes highly regarded by attorneys.
  Author and investigative journalist, Dave Krieger, uncovers information that asserts major banks knew their actions may have clouded your property’s title. Clouded Titles is a must read for all truth-seekers that want to understand how the securitization mess on Wall Street has affected American property owners on Main Street.
  · Paperback: 396 pages
  · Version 3.1, release January 2012.

  Reply
• John Anderson says:

  August 15, 2012 at 11:03 am

  Good work Mr Weidner.
  What always amazes me is the chutzpah the banks/plaintiffs display when confronted, with the record, and being required to follow the rules.
  Normally I get a headache reading this stuff, but this was good.
  All I can say is never underestimate the power of these people to bend and twist the law.
  Illegitimi non carborundum.

  Reply
• Anne Hart says:

  August 15, 2012 at 12:49 pm

  “…let’s call this an alleged assignment.” thanks Matt

  Reply
• Patrick says:

  August 22, 2012 at 7:20 pm

  Without identifcation of the owner of the note, the forecloser cannot testify as to the remaining value of the instrument. The economic value of the instrument resides on the note owner’s balance sheet as the liability, not on internal computerized servicing records or summary of amounts collected. A lien attaches to the note only so long as the debt instrument retains some sort of economic value on somebody’s books of account. That is why the owner of the note is an absolute crucial player in any action to foreclose on the lien instrument.
  In no way can the servicer proffer evidence it knows how the collected payments were actually applied to the borrower’s loan amount as detailed on the note owners books of account. They only have knowledge of what is collected, not how it was actually applied as they are required to pass thru collected amounts to a third party who keeps its own set of books. They can only assume their records are an accurate reflection of the note owner’s books. Without access to remittance records from a master servicer or the books account of the note owner, competent evidencee of the debt amount cannot be established in order to declare a default has occured.
  Moreover, transfer of the debt instrument requires a balance sheet event to occur whereby the asset & liability is transferred from one set of books to another. The asset is the rights and privileges emobodied in the tangible medium. The liability is the consideration given by the borrower in return for a loan. When the borrower’s note is paid off, no more consideration is required and the liability is marked to zero on the books. Without a liability to report, the note holder can’t claim the note has economic value on its books and so its rights and privileges to the collateral are extinguished.
  Why is this important? Well, a servicer cannot take an instrument by transfer because it isn’t entitled to the performance of the borrower via its servicing agreement. A servicer is not entitled to the consideration for the loan and therefore it can’t report the liability on its balance sheet. A note is an asset that must be offset by the a liability on the books. Without taking the liability by transfer, the servicer can’t take the asset by transfer. A servicer pleading it is a holder or holder in due course via transfer of the instrument is admitting accounting fraud in open court.
  A holder or holder in due course is required to have given consideration to a previous note holder or holder in due course in order to effect a balance sheet event. Otherwise the asset, as reflected on the balance sheet, is not transferred and the taker of the tangible note has no credit risk or reward and thus no right to the collateral. Therefore it has not accrued rights and privileges of the original lender despite waving the note in front of a judge. Why presume any consideration was given to a previous holder? Recitations on documents may not be factual as to rights and privilages accrued to the forecloser via the underlying financial transaction. Why also presume the note retains some kind of economic value on somebody’s books?
  A note owner is the only entity that can stamp the note paid and release the lien. If the owner never has custody of the note, how can it be stamped? If the owner is never recorded as the lien holder, how can it release the lien in the public record? The servicer is not the secured party because it can’t take the instrument via transfer. Period.
  A servicer at best is a non-holder in possession of a tangible instrument with rights of a holder or holder in due course as evidenced by some sort of written assignment of those rights and privileges. It may be able to enforce the debt instrument for money damages via possession but it cannot enforce the lien absent written administrative authority from the verified debt owner.
  A servicer never takes the liabilty evidenced by the note unto its balance sheet because its never entitled to the performance of the borrower via its servicing agreement therefore is can never take the asset via transfer. Assets must be offset with liabilities. All the rights and privileges accrued to a holder of the note is the asset. Conversely the liability is the consideration received for the loan. A servicer never entitled to the consideration-it passes it thru to the owner of the loan therefore it can’t report the liability on its books of account And as a consequence can’t proclaim to have taken the asset on its books via a transfer. Any blank endorsement is a smoke screen that doesn’t recite actual financial facts and for a servicer to proffer that it took the asset via transfer is to plead accounting fraud in open court.
  However, a servicer is required to report the servicing contract as an asset on its books of account with an offsetting liability to its counterparty according to accounting rules promulgated by FASB. In fact, servicing rights are brokered in their own secondary marketplace apart from the notes. A proclaimed servicer can’t report the servicing asset without the offsetting liability. So in order to proclaim it is a servicer with a valid contractual asset that allows it to collect, it must have a counterparty to whom it is liable. Failure to provide evidence it has a counterparty must be viewed as a failure to recognize a servicing asset on its books. Without a contractual servicing asset, it has no rights to collect from the borrower or duties to remit borrower payment to a counterparty. I personally believe that a significant portion of trusts set up in the early 2000’s have failed and there is no counterparty to offset contractual servicing rights.
  So in the end, if I found a note in a loan file could I claim to accrue the rights and privilages via purposeful transfer from a predecessor? If I’m a servicer with a contract that precludes me from enjoying the borrower’s performance, I cannot have taken the note, and all the equal rights and privileges under the note, via a purposeful transfer. Therefore, I don’t benefit from the collateral and have no capacity to unilaterally sue under the collateral instrument.
  Why is this concept so difficult for courts to grasp?

  Reply
• Patrick says:

  August 23, 2012 at 11:42 am

  One more thing if I may
  The holder of the note can foreclose if held at the time of initiation. To be a holder or holder in due course requires some kind of consideration in return for the delivery of note, otherwise the plaintiff is a non holder merely in possession of a note without any rights in the note. So did plaintiff give value for the note in its possession? If no value was given for the note, the possessor has no right to the collateral and cannot enforce the mortgage.
  Why must consideration be given? Because an asset, such as a note, can’t be transferred off the books or the transferor unless consideration was received. Passing paper around without an underlying financial transaction does not transfer anything because the asset is actually the rights and privileges embodied in the paper medium, not the paper medium itself. Without accruing rights and privileges (the asset) onto the books in return for consideration, the possessor is a non holder.
  While the UCC is the foundation upon which commercial transactions are based, the transacting parties otherwise agreed to specific contractual provisions that do not disclaim the UCC’s obligation of good faith and fair dealing, reasonableness, and care. The promissory note contains a specific contractual limitation which the parties desired and consented that requires the entity entitled to enforce the note take it via transfer. This means a thief who steals the note or someone in wrongful possession cannot enforce the note even if payable to bearer because a purposeful and intentional delivery from a transferor did not occur.
  The person entitled to enforce the note is also contractually limited to the entity which retains the right to the borrower’s performance. The right to performance is the right to receive payments made under the note (from whatever source) as opposed to the limited right to collect payments strictly from the borrower. A servicer has no rights to the borrower’s performance as evidenced by its separate servicing agreement and so it has no right to unilaterally enforce the note as was desired and consented by the contracting parties.
  UCC 1-302(b) The obligations of good faith, diligence, reasonableness, and care prescribed by [the Uniform Commercial Code] may not be disclaimed by agreement. The parties, by agreement, may determine the standards by which the performance of those obligations is to be measured if those standards are not manifestly unreasonable.
  To the contrary, these specific contractual provisions enhance good faith and fair dealing, reasonableness, and care as it protects all parties at risk of a thief, custodian, or servicer taking wrongful possession and enforcing the note for their own benefit.
  The borrower promises to pay the note holder by transfer with the right to receive payments made under the note. There can only be one note holder entitled to the borrower’s performance and it ain’t the servicer.
  The servicing agreement is crucial to foreclosure defense in order to show no right to performance, hence no right to be a holder with all rights accrued, hence no right to enforce the lien.

  Reply
• Elise says:

  August 29, 2012 at 6:46 pm

  Go, MATT!!! Way to go!!! The Plaintiff’s attorney needs to take a refresher course on real estate, mortgages, notes, assignment and, especially, REMICs and other packages of loans conveyed into investment pools, and he must concentrate on Servicing & Pooling Agreements (SPA). Ha!
  Way to go MATT. And, you actually found out that Deutsche Bank is NOT the Owner, but, if this can be supported by evidence, the “Investors of American Home 24 Mortgage Investment Trust 2005-2” are the Owners!! (see page 86).
  Now, ANYONE can now go to the SEC web site (not SCC as transcribed) to look up the terms and conditions of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. (I’m taking a break from reading on this topic.)
  Based on the hearsay testimony, ‘Deutsche Bank National Trust Company’ is the TRUSTEE FOR THE investors ONLY – not the owner!
  And, based on my reading of a few SPAs, most ‘non-performing’ loans must be pulled out and repurchased from the Investors, and removed from the Pool.
  Also, both the mortgage and note have to be:
  (1) ‘assigned’ AND recorded,
  (2) usually specifying to the affect, ‘as required by laws where the property is located’, and
  (3) the mortgage AND note are to be physically delivered to the
  (4) Trustee of the pool/investment entity/REMIC/RMBS/CMBS on behalf of the Investors.
  All of which you have testimony, based on the ‘business records’ – did NOT occur!
  So, the question is still, ‘Who owns the mortgage and note?’
  Congratulations, MATT WEIDNER!!!!!

  Reply