Bank of America targeted in new probe by New York Attorney General
Newscast Media NEW YORK, New York — In an effort to to get to the the bottom of the questionable foreclosure practices in the mortgage industry, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has targeted Bank of America, the biggest U.S. bank by assets, in a new probe that questions the validity of potentially thousands of mortgage securities and their associated foreclosures, two people familiar with the matter said.
Huffington Post reported that Court testimony and independent studies have raised questions over whether banks and other financial firms passed along the required documents to trusts, the independent entities that oversee securities for investors. In some cases where trusts moved to seize borrowers’ homes, judges have determined the trusts lacked legal standing due to faulty documentation. If the legal steps that guide securitization — like taking mortgage documents from one party to another, a critical step under New York law — were not undertaken, then the investors who bought the bundled loans could force the companies to buy them back, compelling them to eat enormous losses.
New York state investigators could also find that those securities aren’t valid financial instruments at all and take action under state law. Huffington Post did not explain what critical steps needed to be undertaken so I’ll attempt to explain the relevant steps below:
New York State Law:
Nearly all the agreements that govern securtized mortgages (Pooling and Servicing Agreements) are governed by the laws of New York state. The agreement has a section specifically stipulates that the trust agreement “shall be governed by and controlled in accordance with the laws of the State of New York…”
When these securitized loans are passed around and sold to different entities, every transaction has to be recorded in the appropriate County Clerk’s office in the county where the property is located. The note also has to be endorsed without recourse from the seller the buyer.
In the securtization process there is the Originator (bank); Sponsor (a shell company) the Seller (another shell company); Master Servicer; Depositor and then the Trustee. The note should be endorsed from Originator to Sponsor to Seller to Master Servicer then to Depositor sequentially, who finally endorses it to the Trustee. In other words a note that is an asset of the trust should have an “unbroken”chain of endorsements from the Sponsor to the Trustee sequentially.
Article II Section 2.01 of every PSA says: Section 2.01 (c)(i)(A) requires that the Depositor deliver the original Mortgage Note endorsed by manual or facsimile signature in blank in the following form:
“Pay to the order of ____________ without recourse,” with All intervening endorsements showing a Complete chain of endorsement from the Originator to the Person endorsing the Mortgage Note (each such endorsement being sufficient to transfer all right, title and interest of the party so endorsing,
as noteholder or assignee thereof, in and to that Mortgage Note…)
Under New York Trust law:
A. Unless an asset is transferred into a lifetime trust, the asset does not become Trust property. (NY Estates, Powers and Trust Law, Section 7-1.18)
B. The assignment of a mortgage without transfer of the underlying promissory note is a nullity. (Merritt v. Bartholick, 36 N.Y 44 (1867); Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 A.D. 2d 537 (1988)).
C. A Trustee’s act that is contrary to the trust agreement is VOID. (New York Estates, Powers and Trusts Law, Section 7-2.4)
In other words the act of a Trustee receiving an instrument that doesn’t have ALL the intervening endorsements showing an “unbroken” chain of endorsements is void. Also the act of a Trustee receiving an instrument where the actors that purchased and sold it are not recorded in Register of Deeds office is void.
Banks have constantly failed to provide notes that have all endorsements and have thus failed to prove standing. Most people do not understand what standing to foreclose means, but under Article III of the United States Constitution, to meet the standing burden, a bank should prove the following:
(i) Injury in fact, (ii) Causation and (iii) Redressability. To have LEGAL standing a party must assert “its own” legal interests as the real party in interest. If a bank cannot prove that the loan became an asset of the Trust, it can never be able to prove standing.
The same Section 2.01(B) stipulates: “As promptly as practicable subsequent to such transfer and assignment, and in any event, within one-hundred and twenty (120) days after such transfer and assignment, the Trustee shall (B) cause such assignment to bein proper form for recording in the appropriate public office for real property records and (C) cause to be delivered for recording in the appropriate public office for real property records the assignments of the Mortgages to the Trustee…”
Broken Chain of Assignments:
So even if the note has the endorsements but the entities that purchased the Note were never recorded at the time of foreclosure, in County Clerk’s office where the property is located, the bank once again cannot meet the standing burden, because an unrecorded assignment creates a broken chain in title, and if you do not know who owns the title, you do not know whom to pay, hence the instrument becomes void.
A Broken Chain of Assignments renders the “Deed of Trust” Void and Unenforceable under UCC 3-201, 3-204 & 3-302 and as such no triggering of the foreclosure clause in the “Deed of Trust” is possible. With regard to real property, before an entity assigned an interest in that property would be entitled to lay claim on the property, their interest therein must have been recorded in accordance to State property laws.
Now this new investigation into whether the securities these companies created are even valid, represents a new front in Schneiderman’s ongoing probe, and raises fresh questions into the potential liability sellers of these mortgage instruments face. http://www.newscastmedia.com/ny-attorneygeneral.html


I refinanced in March 2003. I know my loan was securitized in May 2003. I have had three servicers since (Novelle Financial Services, Wilshire Credit and now BofA). There are NO assignments recorded at all. I did a QWR to BofA who sent me a “Certified” copy of my original note. There are NO endorsements at all and no attachments. I have requested a “Satisfaction Recording” from the Originator who is on my Note and listed as lender on my mortgage and I know they were paid. They have 45 days to respond (July 22). They can’t record a Satisfaction even though they have been paid as they will trip up the investors who bought the loan. If they DON’T record a Satisfaction, I can sue them for up to the full amount of the mortgage according to Pennsylvania law. The law does not care WHO paid the orignator (me, my grandmother or some investor in Spain). Should be interesting to say the least.
From the other end of the securitization fraud—Main Street American homeowners
Context (This part is just for context, soap opera-like but very true)
Husband and I are estranged in 2003, he wants to refinance in early 2004. Eventually leaves in Dec 2005. After months in 2006 of disagreeing to a refi, I agree to it. He signs the Note and Mortgage but the Deed stays in both our names (he pursued me to transfer but I didn’t, thank God). Turns out my forged signature appears on the Mortgage –but not the Note. This ‘secured’ the Note. Since I made more money than him, I can see why Merrill Lynch Credit Corp–the underwriter–would want to forge my signature on the asset.
In April 2006 he stops paying mortgage. Then the divorce action starts, blah, blah, blah,
The servicer PHH through its Foreclosure Attorneys–Shapiro & Dicaro–the foreclosure mill)–, files an Order of Reference in late 2006, a few months after the mortgage default as of April 1, 2006. The Judge dismisses it due to Plaintiff not providing the ‘Trustee Agreement’ as evidence they have any claims. Plaintiff files for an Appeal but suddenly withdraws it.
Important Stuff
Shapiro & Dicaro, attorneys for servicer PHH file another foreclosure complaint in April 2008. The mortgage assignment is executed by Marc J. Hinkle, an employee of PHH acting as ‘Attorney In Fact’ showing a 2006 date. The recipient of this assignment is Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee. (Trustee of what? It didn’t say)
Shapiro withdraws the foreclosure complaint in June 2008. This allowed them to ‘perfect’ the assignment, however, it was almost TWO years after the Trust’s Pooling & Servicing Agreement allowed it AND it was already a non-performing loan–against the Prospectus’ terms. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1312848/000095012304015242/0000950123-04-015242.txt.
Months later I find out there’s another forecosure complaint filed by Shapiro as attorneys for a Trust I didn’t know who it was a Trustee for. This was filed July 29, 2008. Several months after filing, I came across these documents through the divorce case. It showed a mortgage assignment to: MERRIL LYNCH MORTGAGE INVESTORS, INC TRUST SERIES MLCC 2004-G PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES. The person assigning it had been the same Marc J. Hinkle, again as Attorney In Fact. So here, an agent for an entity that hasn’t yet taken ownership of any property to claim, acts as an agent of that property. Interesting. Also interesting that this assignment was FOUR YEARS after the PSA closing date of Dec 2004. WOW.
This was in June 2008. I searched http://www.sec.gov and looked at the Pooling & Servicing Agreement for the above mentioned Trust/certs. The closing date of this transaction was ‘ On or about December 29, 2004′, by which time the ‘asset.backing’ mortgages had to be transferred into the Trust.
So the natural questions are:
1-Why was this mortgage assigned to the Trust almost 4.5 years after the Trust’s own Pooling and Servicing Agreement closing date?
2-Why was this non-performing asset transferred into a Trust that sold bonds on the premise (according to the prospectus) of being guaranteed by performing loans?
3-Why did Merrilll sell the bonds based on the tranche risk profile of the underlying loan pool guarantees when even if by 1 loan, this product was fraudulent?
4- Why didn’t Merrill or the Trustee Wells Fargo report this to investors? (investor listing below)
The associated tranches and CUSIPS are:
A-1……………….. $306,568,000 (2) Senior 59020U NZ4
A-2……………….. $163,396,000 (2) Senior 59020U PA7
A-R……………….. $ 100 (3) Residual/Senior 59020U PC3
X-A……………… (4) (4) Notional/Senior 59020U PB5
B-1……………… $ 5,092,000 (2) Subordinate 59020U PD1
B-2…………… $ 3,880,000 (2) Subordinate 59020U PE9
B-3………………. $ 2,182,000 (2) Subordinate 59020U PF6
A sampling of the associated investors of one or more of these tranches of this specific example include: (from public information and for the years 2007-2010):
–Wiliam and Melinda Gates Foundation
–Massachusetts Mutual variable Annuity Separate Account I
–CM Variable Life
–MAIDEN LANE II Portfolio (not sure if NY FRB sold it yet as it is a non-agency RMBS and the NY FRB stalled sales of Maiden in July 2011)
–PIMCO INCOME FUND
–AIG (back in time when they bailed out Bear Stearns, they held one of these tranches)
The NY foreclosure judges don’t comprehend the esoteric world of securitization–they are elected officials.
They only go by legal procedure, and even in the face of blatant FRAUD, these Judges gloss over issues of Standing. In layman’s and contemporary folklore: “Dude, if you are not the true owner of this asset, you can’t get the face value of this asset—for the Nth time” (ie the re-securitization process, the bailout and TARP, etc.).
Your commentary on this simple yet powerful humble example of how this foreclosure mess still needs a lot more transparency than what the FRB claims it has would be so, so helpful to millions of hard working people.
The Pooling and Servicing Agreement says it all. Most trusts are defunct and trustees have no standing to enforce these alleged debt obligations on behalf of non-existent trusts. You have to school your lawyer and the judge about securitization.
Note to OneObserver: Can you give me an indication as to how you got the Cusip Numbers? I’ve been all over SEC trying to find them. My note (according to BofA) is Aurora SAIL 2003-BC8. I can’t find anything about it other than the original prospectus and agreement. Apparently no filings with the SEC after Lehman bankrupted. Any help would be appreciated.