Via: Naked Capitalism
We’ve described in various posts how evidence is growing that the participants in mortgage securitizations sometime early in this century appear to have ignored the requirements of a variety of laws and their own contracts. We believe the most serious and difficult to remedy problem results when the parties involved in the creation of a mortgage securitization failed to take the steps necessary to convey the loans to the legal entity, a trust, which was set up to hold them. As we wrote:
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.…. there is substantial evidence that in many cases, the notes were not conveyed to the trust as stipulated. As we have discussed, the pooling and servicing agreement, which governs who does what when in a mortgage securitization, requires the note (the borrower IOU) to be endorsed (just like a check, signed by one party over to the next), showing the full chain of title. The minimum conveyance chain in recent vintage transactions is A (originator) => B (sponsor) => C (depositor) => D (trust).
The proper conveyance of the note is crucial, since the mortgage, which is the lien, is a mere accessory to the note and can be enforced only by the proper note holder (the legalese is “real party of interest”). The investors in the mortgage securitization relied upon certifications by the trustee for the trust at and post closing that the trust did indeed have the assets that the investors were told it possessed.
One Response to “More Evidence That Mortgage Loans Were Not Properly Conveyed to Securitization Trusts”
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by ForeclosureHamlet, DinSFLA. DinSFLA said: More Evidence That Mortgage Loans Were Not Properly Conveyed to Securitization Trusts http://goo.gl/fb/L8E4t […]