Tweet
By saying he doesn’t believe any foreclosures have happened which shouldn’t have happened, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon is trying to deflect attention from foreclosing banks’ fraud. He implies that all foreclosures are justified because all of the homeowners were in default.
Bad, naughty homeowners, you deserved to be cast into the street by Dimon.
We know that’s not true and that homes have gone into foreclosure when the homeowners didn’t even have a mortgage!
More importantly, Dimon ignores that the banksters’ fraud committed upon the court hides the fact that foreclosing banks cannot prove they are the actual plaintiffs with the legal right to foreclose on a home.
That’s why the banks and their servicers need false affidavits and forged documents, to fake proof that they are the correct party in interest even when they are not.
It’s perjury, and it’s still a crime in this country. . . .
The only entities that should foreclose are those which can conclusively prove EVERY step in the chain of title and show that the promissory note was never separated and sold to a different entity than the mortgage.
If the entity holding the mortgage does not own the debt, there is nothing to foreclose on. If the entity holding the debt, does not own the mortgage, the debt is still owed, but becomes unsecured debt, like credit card debt and the creditor has no right to foreclose on the real estate. In either case, Dimon should not be casting families out into the streets.
Dimon is full of beans. Even if the foreclosing bank is owed the money, it may very well still not be entitled to foreclose, though wage garnishee might be an option after trial on the debt case. Of course, unsecured debt is usually dischargeable in bankruptcy. Just because the homeowners are not current in their mortgages does not automatically mean that the house is forfeit, even though the debt may still exist.
22 Comments
The other day Janeeyresick raised the issue if the banks can’t prove standing or ownership then there is a serious problem with mortgages that are current and not in default. In that case the homeowner may be making payments to an entity not entitled to the payment. This should create a flood of requests to servicers to force them to prove they have a right to collect the payment pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)(Section 6). If the servicer cannot prove the right to collect the payment then as Janeeyresick said file a Quiet Title action and if the servicer does not prove the right to collect the money Quite title should be granted. Then sue the servicer for each and every payment made to them that they were not entitled to collect. This could be a huge offshoot of the foreclosure mess.
You are being charitable. The likelihood that MOTU Dimon did not know about the fraud upon which his company made billions is nil. Dimon has a vested interest in covering his gold-plated backside, before the investors he defrauded (not just the homeowners) come after him for all he’s worth.
Then there are the cases where the homeowner never was properly or timely (or at all) notified of the “transfer” of their “note” to a new servicer, and continued making payments to the “wrong” servicer. In some of those cases, the payments never got from the first servicer to the second servicer, leaving the owner/borrower “in arrears” or “in default” as far as the new servicer was concerned.
There are many, many ways these things are not presumptively “accurate in their underlying facts.”
Can hardly wait to see some of them come out. Still marvelling at that depo from the Fla. “paralegal” at the Stern foreclosure firm.
“Truth” isn’t in the vocabulary. Today’s CEO’s live in a complex world consisting of many shades of grey. And as Mr Dimon will attest, anything short of pitch black could be considered a shade of grey.
Anyway, Dimon and the rest are children. We need to get some adults to take over and find a way to keep people in thier homes. The unemployment combined with the housing crisis is just a chain reaction which will keep going and going without end. Allowing this to continue is barbaric.
Where’s the Note?
‘Banks Up Against the Wall – “They don’t have the paper”,’ by Michael Collins, Oct. 15, 2010
You are way too generous; the chances are nil.
slide @ 1
The money collected by the servicers, and distributed to the MBS trustees (after taking their commission) is of no interest to the banks. They make their money creating ‘innovative investment instruments’ and fobbing them off, then collecting bonuses.The payments to the MBS are just a coverup, part of the ruse. The banks know that their MERS artifice is a sham, and that the notes were never conveyed into the MBS. The notes were endorsed in blank and, according to a comment by Yves Smith, have been retained by the banks, in some case shipped abroad (for safe keeping?). The fact that these notes are in blank means that they are now bearer instruments. Whoever has them in their possession can claim title to the millions of homes. I think there’s another big, creepy shoe to drop. These notes could also be used as insurance against criminal prosecution.
As I said the other day, your “just the facts” style is more compassionate in the end, than all my raging.
Telling a person that they should be angry, is nothing compared to explaining what they might do about it.
Just like the wars and the torture and the brutal health care (death and bankruptcy) system, it is just one more link in a chain of barbarisms.
He-heh. If the banks take it up the ass because of that I’d consider it both poetic and literal justice.
Wish someone would ask about his partership with the Mexican Drug Cartels.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/economy/getting-dirty-money-clean/1121/
Cynthia–
Thanks for keeping this on the front page. This is invaluable work you are doing.
I believe this may be the beginning of the end for the Wall Street whiz kids, but we’ll see. I’ve been disappointed before, and unfortunately our President and Congress aren’t helping to shine a light on any of this. I was sorely disappointed that the SEC let Angelo Mozillo plead to the charges yesterday. There is no obligatation to do so, and it only makes transparency that much more difficult. I hope at the very least they have to go before Judge Rakoff and explain it.
Yeah, it certainly fits the current overall theme but the current housing and employment policies are a break with 75+ year traditions which were relatively civilized.
As I understand the evidence, keeping in mind this is a evolving story, the servicers, in some instances, cannot locate the location of the note or prove ownership of the note. Even for loans not in default this is problematic as, in such a case, the servicer cannot establish a right to receive payments. That is why “Where’s the note” [see post # 5] is important. My point is force the servicer to prove he is entitled to collect the payments and if he cannot prove it file a quiet title action. If that is successful sue the servicer for each and every payment made to which they were not entitled to collect.
If, in fact, this is a systemic problem the servicers are crazy to be harassing homeowners with foreclosure, defaults and fee claims. If I were a servicer and I knew I could not produce the note or prove a right to collect on a mortgage I would offer the homeowner a ‘deal’; reduce the mortgage 50%; a reasonable interest rate; and do a new note and mortgage. The new note would be the controlling instrument. Just sayin….
thanks Cynthia, rec.
I confess I have had moments in the last few weeks where I actually thought Dimon et al were in for an accountability moment . . .
then I come across something like this
deep, long, pathetic sigh
The war is far from won. There is strong sentiment amongst judges, at least in my state, that the money was lent, the borrower signed the note and payments are in default ergo foreclosure follows.
I took a case to our Appellate Court in which the assignment of the mortgage was clearly invalid. The judge said “assuming arguendo” the assignment was invalid, it didn’t matter because the mortgage followed the note and the note (which was produced) had been endorsed in blank.
Curiously, the Uniform Commercial Code, which governs these transactions and which was written in simpler times, refers to “holders” of notes. I believe the writers of the act intended the word “holder” to mean “owner” it being the practice in those days that the two were really one. Now foreclosing parties freely admit they hold the paper without owning it. Doesn’t mean diddly in my state.
Nothing matters when the fix is in. Some rich and powerful people want this to go away. They may get their way.
And by the way, I consider it significant when Legacy Media pieces appear as the one linked to this post. My read is that the banksters are concerned and feeling threatened enough that they are already on the “spin” offensive (i.e., “damage control”).
Dimon, like all MOTU, only wants the “moral hazard” to be bourne by the “small people.” Dimon adheres to the policy that the Oligarchs & their various subsidiary “business” entities (I think the more accurate term is: criminal empires) should never ever under any circumstances whatsoever bear any “moral hazard.” Just because.
More and more I am coming to see the likes of Oligarchs like Dimon as big-time Mob Chiefs. Seriously: whatever do they contribute to our nation or society? They are solely out for themselves, and they roll over anyone in their way. Crony capitalism run amok.
Thank you Cynthia for another newsworthy and informative post.
A few of the questions above (and concerns such as @7) I share as well.
Hmmm …
(from “4closureFraud Needs Your Help – IRS Form 938 – I Have No Idea If This Is Important But It Sure is Curious,” Oct. 15, 2010)
mzchief @ 20
Wow! Thanks for this link. It seems to corroborate my suggestion @ 7. The other scheme described in your linked post:
In this post from Gonzalo Lira we learn that:
Instead of conveying notes into MBSs they were parked in the MERS database, awaiting their ultimate outcome. As mortgages defaulted, the banks foreclosed, using the retained original notes, then assigned the defaulted loans into the MBSs. Presumably the loans still performing are still parked in MERS. The banks now own the houses. They had previously sold the mortgages on these houses to investors.
The fast and furious foreclosing that is now going on with WH encouragement would seem to only make sense if the government has already discounted the banks’ mortgage debt to zero, as John Ryskamp posits in comments at Naked Capitalism and Zero Hedge, or if there is some other plan to make the banks whole by having the government buy these houses from the banks for the face value of the mortgages. Is this the next shoe dropping, to which I alluded @ 7?
This international black box “financial” system is the Comp Sci geek’s Fraud-o-matic cloning new chargeable units out of thin air and the geeks just that this is just the way things should be and absolutely adore it. They thought they could get the rest of us to sing along with them and even buy into the sham. Well, I think they’ve misjudged how folks respond upon the discovery of being stolen blind.