This is an excerpt from a frequent commenter on Living Lies, ANONYMOUS:
It is the consensus in courts – as you state – that judges conclude – “someone” must be entitled to foreclose if the borrower had missed payments.” I have also heard stories about judges saying – “If this is not the real party – I will find the real party.” Unfortunately, courts are ignoring the law – the real party MUST be before the court to enforce the foreclosure. But, real parties are not coming forward due to deregulation that allows them to remain concealed. Thus, foreclosures are – simply – invalid.
Judges can not – and should not – project their own personal bias into decisions which allow ANY concealed real party to remain concealed. Further, judges should be allowing full discovery to investigate fraud in the origination of the mortgage in question. – and, whether or not these were were even “mortgages” (secured) to begin with. No party should owe any mortgage loan that was fraudulently originated, fraudulently funded – if funded at all, and fraudulently solicited. And, we should not have to be “jumping through hoops” – to make the courts realize this. The court’s role is not debt collection for undisclosed parties. The courts role is to uphold the law. For those not well versed in court procedures, securitiztion, and all other aspects of valid challenge – (including Neil’s aid) – these people are doomed. They will never even KNOW that they have been defrauded.
As to modifications, the reason modifications are not being properly granted is because the party claiming to “modify” – is not the real party in interest and has no authority to modify any loan – never mind sign a new contract. with you. A modification is simply a modification of the original contract. But, if the original party with whom the contract was signed is gone (as most are) – there CAN BE NO modification without disclosing the identity of the new creditor. Over and over, again, I will state – security investors are not CREDITORS – and neither is a servicer. NO CONTRACT CAN BE DONE IN THE SERVICER NAME (unless they purchased the loan – in that case, they must tell you.)
In addition, the goal with modifications is to keep borrowers in a “trial” modification – just long enough to sell collection rights to a third party. If a permanent modification is – by chance – granted, the terms are so egregious that no borrower should be signing on the dotted line. Included in these terms, are full payment of invalid fees- that likely keep accruing, extended terms, and a complete signing off of any future rights.
However, most disconcerting about Neil’s post – for which he is absolutely correct – is the judge’s personal bias that these fraudulent loans and foreclosures – must be accounted for and paid forby YOU. This has been the standard attitude in courts (and without any legal justification) across the country. And, why we face such difficulty in courts.
I revert back to Mr. Henry Paulson who promoted this attitude from the onset of the financial crisis. And, IT IS a crisis – not just to taxpayers – but to every homeowner who has lost – or is losing – his/her home to the fraud.
Our judicial system is gone – and with it – goes America. We can scratch our head all we want – but if something is not done…….. we all will lose.