general questions and re-conveyance question

[dafinch]

Instead of exhibiting a smug, pontificating attitude, you might try reading what I actually wrote: I've already showed this to a lawyer, which I clearly said earlier.

Ok, but when I said lawyer, I meant one who knows foreclosure law. Anyway, you're not approaching the attorney-client relationship in good faith if you cook up your own (crackpot) theories and then go to the attorney seeking that person's approval. That isn't the way it works. Let me guess, you just showed up under the guise of wanting to hire the attorney, and didn't but just blew a few facts by them in the free initial interview, and when he didn't tell you what you want to hear, off you go to sovrun la la land. Amiright?

Wrong on all counts, except the specialty of the lawyer. It takes a special kind of arrogance to assume that one knows the motive of somebody by posts on an internet forum, and anybody who keeps babbling "snake oil! snake oil!" like a brain dead parrot-not to mention prattles on about "good faith" without offering a single reason why the clause in question is being misinterpreted(while keeping his head buried in the sand-or wherever-about the gross and ongoing misconduct of the lenders, not to mention the ever growing list of lender defeats in court)is not somebody's opinion I have any interest in.

[davids]

Instead of exhibiting a smug, pontificating attitude, you might try reading what I actually wrote: I've already showed this to a lawyer, which I clearly said earlier.

Ok, but when I said lawyer, I meant one who knows foreclosure law. Anyway, you're not approaching the attorney-client relationship in good faith if you cook up your own (crackpot) theories and then go to the attorney seeking that person's approval. That isn't the way it works. Let me guess, you just showed up under the guise of wanting to hire the attorney, and didn't but just blew a few facts by them in the free initial interview, and when he didn't tell you what you want to hear, off you go to sovrun la la land. Amiright?

Wrong on all counts, except the specialty of the lawyer. It takes a special kind of arrogance to assume that one knows the motive of somebody by posts on an internet forum, and anybody who keeps babbling "snake oil! snake oil!" like a brain dead parrot-not to mention prattles on about "good faith" without offering a single reason why the clause in question is being misinterpreted(while keeping his head buried in the sand-or wherever-about the gross and ongoing misconduct of the lenders, not to mention the ever growing list of lender defeats in court)is not somebody's opinion I have any interest in.

I sue lenders. You're not getting traction with your sovrun citizen theories here, and so you impugn the motives of people who are just disagreeing with you because you are flat wrong. And I dare say that "truth is a defense" in the fact that one can ascertain where you are headed from your very first post. You come in talking old hat sovrun nonsense, same typical quatloos-troll "just asking questions" approach, then within a post or two you're already firing the bull canon.

[Hyrion]

you're telling me that the clause doesn't mean what is says?

Nope, I didn't say that at all.

I did say: it doesn't mean what you claim it means. Sorry, but I choose not to buy what you're trying to sell.

[notorial dissent]

Alright, to begin with I really wish that people who want to ask a “simple question” would do just that instead of inundating with useless and extraneous information, noise, etc.

Mercifully, right off the bat, you tell us that you got suckered in by George Tran, and that tells us a lot. Basically that everything that you think you know from that point on YOU DON’T. George Tran is a con artist and nothing more, and anything he tells you is pure fantasy. So start from there.

I have a further feeling from what you’ve said, and how you’ve said it that you really don’t know what “reconveyance “ and reconveyancing” are.

You have not actually said what the clause is that you seem so enraptured of, in other words, you have provided no useful information whatsoever.

Just for clarity’s sake, reconveyancing, at least in the real world, implies that a piece of real estate has been sold and that a deed need be drawn up to transfer actual ownership from one party to another. Modernly, there is also usually a deed of trust and a promissory note that goes along with this since the buyer seldom has cash up front. Once this is all done, the property belongs to the buyer subject to the mortgage/deed of trust. The property and the deed of trust are two entirely separate entities at this point, and the deed of trust, specifically the right to collect the money due under it can be sold or transferred any number of times, and this DOES NOT constitute a reconveyance.

So what it boils down to is that you’ve been conned by a mortgage fraud charleton, and you are now trying to perpetrate mortgage fraud. The usual result in this is that you will ultimately lose the property you were trying to buy, and if you’re really really stupid, you may find yourself on your way to jail as an added bonus.

[Burnaby49]

Why bother replying. Dafinch is a moron who is going to lose his property over his own stupidity.

[The Observer]

Why bother replying. Dafinch is a moron who is going to lose his property over his own stupidity.

I don't know, I think dafinch should run with his line of reasoning and take on the scumbags of Wells Fargo. I always like it when the underdog stands up and decides to fight back, against overwhelming odds, against the sinister banker to save his home on the range. Of course the real enjoyment for me is when the underdog gets crushed in court, watches his home get foreclosed and he is trying to explain to his family and friends why he is on the street. An added bonus is watching him trying to explain why his winning arguments failed to convince a judge.

So, dafinch, I am encouraging you to continue with your course of action and ignore all of these naysayers here at Quatloos. So what if they are batting.999 on legal issues like this? On any given they could be wrong and this might just be the day! All I ask is that you come back and let us know how your fight turned out and if you sent Wells Fargo packing with its tail between its legs. If not, then let us know where you ended up staying once the sheriff or marshal showed up and evicted you.

[Judge Roy Bean]

....I'll take the opinions-and credentials-of Todd Walker and a judge over yours(see below), but I'm sure you'll come up with some bogus reason to discredit them.

First, it's Walker Todd and if you adhere to that kind of mythology you're doomed.

It is illustrative though; you're so far off into the legal mythology that you're actually willing to risk your home in order to prove the unprovable.

It takes a massive ego to be so convinced by your own internet-driven self-study that you would subject other people to the financial and emotional damage of losing a home, but we've seen them come and go over the years - including those who had legitimate legal gripes but just couldn't let go of the fantasies.

Either that, or you're just another charlatan promoter looking for a way to draw others into paying you to educate them.

[dafinch]

Alright, to begin with I really wish that people who want to ask a “simple question” would do just that instead of inundating with useless and extraneous information, noise, etc.

Mercifully, right off the bat, you tell us that you got suckered in by George Tran, and that tells us a lot. Basically that everything that you think you know from that point on YOU DON’T. George Tran is a con artist and nothing more, and anything he tells you is pure fantasy. So start from there.

I have a further feeling from what you’ve said, and how you’ve said it that you really don’t know what “reconveyance “ and reconveyancing” are.

You have not actually said what the clause is that you seem so enraptured of, in other words, you have provided no useful information whatsoever.

Just for clarity’s sake, reconveyancing, at least in the real world, implies that a piece of real estate has been sold and that a deed need be drawn up to transfer actual ownership from one party to another. Modernly, there is also usually a deed of trust and a promissory note that goes along with this since the buyer seldom has cash up front. Once this is all done, the property belongs to the buyer subject to the mortgage/deed of trust. The property and the deed of trust are two entirely separate entities at this point, and the deed of trust, specifically the right to collect the money due under it can be sold or transferred any number of times, and this DOES NOT constitute a reconveyance.

So what it boils down to is that you’ve been conned by a mortgage fraud charleton, and you are now trying to perpetrate mortgage fraud. The usual result in this is that you will ultimately lose the property you were trying to buy, and if you’re really really stupid, you may find yourself on your way to jail as an added bonus.

You, like quite a few people around here, have an unpleasant habit of attributing remarks to people that they didn't say. Nobody said anything about getting suckered by anybody, so, for starters, you don't read very well. Tran freely admitted that he got the idea from an attorney. I sent a conditional acceptance to GRI, and their attorney sent back 3 separate letters on the matter, one of them notarized, which were, as mentioned, very evasive, using such phrases as, "to the best of my knowledge" which is often code for, "I don't know," or I DO know but answering truthfully is not likely to be in my, or my client's, best interest. Eventually he washed his hand of the entire matter, dumping it into Wells Fargo's lap. Then there was my consultation with my own attorney, who, as mentioned, thought that perhaps that GRI had been partially paid off, but allowed as to if they HAD been fully paid off, then it appeared that the property should be re-conveyed. So, that's potentially 3 lawyers, 2 of whom say, "yea" and the 3rd one kind of abstains, for reasons that aren't hard to guess. Then there is YOU. You'll pardon me if I take their word over yours, but thanks for your pompous, blustery "input."

[dafinch]

....I'll take the opinions-and credentials-of Todd Walker and a judge over yours(see below), but I'm sure you'll come up with some bogus reason to discredit them.

First, it's Walker Todd and if you adhere to that kind of mythology you're doomed.

It is illustrative though; you're so far off into the legal mythology that you're actually willing to risk your home in order to prove the unprovable.

It takes a massive ego to be so convinced by your own internet-driven self-study that you would subject other people to the financial and emotional damage of losing a home, but we've seen them come and go over the years - including those who had legitimate legal gripes but just couldn't let go of the fantasies.

Either that, or you're just another charlatan promoter looking for a way to draw others into paying you to educate them.

I find it interesting that you brought up the subject of MERS, a scam if there ever was one, and when I showed numerous, and ever increasing, examples of them getting their ass kicked, you didn't have much to say. I also noticed that you breezily claim that notes sold in a pool somehow exempt the rules of the DOT being followed, without presenting of shred of evidence that this is, indeed, the case. I, on the other hand, showed information suggesting that securitization is illegal, and, once, again, crickets. You and somebody else made the claim that none of this is covered by the UCC, and, once again, rather than just running my mouth, I showed laws that said otherwise. Once again, only snide remarks, but no actual response to the information posted. Interesting. Last, but not least, it's amazing how so many people are so quick to point out "scams" and dishonor amongst "borrowers," but having nothing to say about the absolute scum who runs scams to the tune of billions of dollars. I refer to, of course, lenders(many of whom I suspect infest this site). And, as far as I am aware, NONE of those turds have done jail time, with the notable exception of Lee Farkas, the head of Taylor, Bean, and Whitaker, which originated the loan on one of my homes. No need to contact the original lender there, 'cause they shut him down and put his ass away for about 30 years. That should be done with the heads of the Big Six banks, as far as I am concerned, which includes Wells Fargo, who, just a few days ago, allowed as how they are cracking down on kickback scams after getting hit with yet another multi million dollar fine. Nooo hand wringing or gnashing of teeth for the victims of THOSE scammers around here, at least not far as I can see. You probably support the recent idiotic move where they can be bailed out, yet again. Anyway, good luck with your backing of MERS, lol.

[Jeffrey]

How were you personally scammed?

They gave you the money to buy a house and then you failed to pay them back in accordance with the mortgage contract you signed with them.

I'll repeat what notorial asked you, please provide the reconveyance clause you are referring to, either transcribe it or post a scan of it so we can discuss it.

[dafinch]

How were you personally scammed?

They gave you the money to buy a house and then you failed to pay them back in accordance with the mortgage contract you signed with them.

I'll repeat what notorial asked you, please provide the reconveyance clause you are referring to, either transcribe it or post a scan of it so we can discuss it.

Once again, what I said is mis-stated: I didn't say I was personally scammed-I said the banks were scammers, and until and unless I see compelling evidence regarding the following clause-which I've already posted in this thread-I'm not going to LET them scam me. Again, they wrote this clause, not me-oh, and, btw, Wells Fargo has already broken the law in that they have 30 business days to answer the QWR that we sent(which has questions they'll never be able to answer properly under oath), but only 5 days to acknowledge that they received it, which-SURPRISE!-they failed to do. That's $2,000 for RESPA violations and $4,000 for TILA, and I've already gotten a judgment against them several months ago for TCPA violations. Once again, the clause:

"Upon payment of all sums secured by this Security Instrument, Lender shall instruct Trustee to release this Security Instrument and surrender all notes evidencing debt secured by this Security Instrument to Trustee. Trustee shall release this security instrument.”

[Jeffrey]

Well I think the other posters answered your question regarding the reconveyance clause. The reconveyance only happens "Upon payment of all sums", you haven't done that yet.

Wells Fargo has already broken the law in that they have 30 business days to answer the QWR that we sent(which has questions they'll never be able to answer properly under oath), but only 5 days to acknowledge that they received it, which-SURPRISE!-they failed to do.

Not quite, it seems that what you sent to them is not a QWR but rather some type of Freeman document which does not qualify as a QWR and thus they aren't required to respond or acknowlege it. QWR must be "reasonably stated" and must only contain questions about the servicing of the mortage which "does not include the transactions and circumstances surrounding a loan’s origination". see: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/o ... -55412.pdf at page ten in particular.

So you sending them a letter asking them to answer bizarre questions "under oath" doesn't qualify as a QWR.

[dafinch]

Well I think the other posters answered your question regarding the reconveyance clause. The reconveyance only happens "Upon payment of all sums", you haven't done that yet.

Wells Fargo has already broken the law in that they have 30 business days to answer the QWR that we sent(which has questions they'll never be able to answer properly under oath), but only 5 days to acknowledge that they received it, which-SURPRISE!-they failed to do.

Not quite, it seems that what you sent to them is not a QWR but rather some type of Freeman document which does not qualify as a QWR and thus they aren't required to respond or acknowlege it. QWR must be "reasonably stated" and must only contain questions about the servicing of the mortage which "does not include the transactions and circumstances surrounding a loan’s origination". see: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/o ... -55412.pdf at page ten in particular.

So you sending them a letter asking them to answer bizarre questions "under oath" doesn't qualify as a QWR.

Why would you give an opinion when it's clear that you haven't read what I said-more than once-that it doesn't say that the payment of all sums have to be paid by the borrower, ONLY THAT THEY MUST BE PAID IN FULL FOR THE RE-CONVEYANCE TO TAKE PLACE. That is, at best, ambiguous, and I have provided an example of what should be done when a contract clause is ambiguous.

As for the QWR, it was prepared by a group who has had success challenging mortgages, so I'll take their word over yours. Btw, I just dug up a case from last month, where Wells Fargo got their foreclosure attempt thrown out because-wait for it-they tried to introduce unrecorded assignments. What are the odds??? Then they tried some half ass attempt to get the homeowner's counter suit thrown out, which the judge brushed aside and allowed her to go forward with her FDCPA claim. I don't like their(Wells Fargo) chances, lol...

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/ ... d0954p.pdf

[notorial dissent]

Amazing, after all that blather and bluster, finally an answer.

Upon payment of all sums secured by this Security Instrument, Lender shall instruct Trustee to release this Security Instrument and surrender all notes evidencing debt secured by this Security Instrument to Trustee. Trustee shall release this security instrument.

Now that wasn't so terribly hard was it?

The clause, is, or some variation of it is and should be a part of every type of agreement of this type. It means exactly what it says, when you, or the mythical mortgagor, pays off the loan taken out to buy the property, the Trustee, or whoever is actually holding the paper should do two things, sign and file a release of the deed of trust, and cancel and return the note. In actual practice, in the real world, it is usually only the deed of trust that gets cancelled since it is the public record. As long as the deed of trust is cancelled, that is really all that is necessary as the cancellation of it will signify the cancellation and payment of the note and the clearing of the title to the property.

Now, just how have you misconstrued the above simple and concise statement.

[dafinch]

Amazing, after all that blather and bluster, finally an answer.

Upon payment of all sums secured by this Security Instrument, Lender shall instruct Trustee to release this Security Instrument and surrender all notes evidencing debt secured by this Security Instrument to Trustee. Trustee shall release this security instrument.

Now that wasn't so terribly hard was it?

The clause, is, or some variation of it is and should be a part of every type of agreement of this type. It means exactly what it says, when you, or the mythical mortgagor, pays off the loan taken out to buy the property, the Trustee, or whoever is actually holding the paper should do two things, sign and file a release of the deed of trust, and cancel and return the note. In actual practice, in the real world, it is usually only the deed of trust that gets cancelled since it is the public record. As long as the deed of trust is cancelled, that is really all that is necessary as the cancellation of it will signify the cancellation and payment of the note and the clearing of the title to the property.

Now, just how have you misconstrued the above simple and concise statement.

I'M the one with blather and bluster???? You try to come off as a snarky wise man, but can't pull it off-case in point: "finally" an answer?!?! If you'd pull your head out and learn how read carefully, you'd realize that a) I already posted the clause earlier in this thread and b) I said as much in my post that preceded this one. And, of course, you lied, and had the gall to highlight said lie. It does NOT say, "you," "me," or the "mortgagor" in that clause, it says if it is PAID IN FULL...nothing about who must pay it. You should work on your reading skills, you REALLY should.

"Finally"...oh,brother...

[davids]

I'M the one with blather and bluster???? You try to come off as a snarky wise man, but can't pull it off-case in point: "finally" an answer?!?! If you'd pull your head out and learn how read carefully, you'd realize that a) I already posted the clause earlier in this thread and b) I said as much in my post that preceded this one. And, of course, you lied, and had the gall to highlight said lie. It does NOT say, "you," "me," or the "mortgagor" in that clause, it says if it is PAID IN FULL...nothing about who must pay it. You should work on your reading skills, you REALLY should.

"Finally"...oh,brother...

and somehow, you're still of the opinion that you get "something for nothing." As I understand it, no one has paid the debt in full, and you're celebrating your brilliance while that elephant lounges by the coffee table.

I knew you were jacked up on a buttload of sovrun moonshine when you started talking about Article 9 and securities. Dead giveaway. Let me guess, you are not a person, either.

[dafinch]

Yup, one can tell from the following that Wells Fargo is as clean as a hound's tooth; I guess they were just unlucky that they made mistakes in 20 out of 20 loans checked, and got fined 3.1 million for just one of them. Or, maybe they think that one can get something for nothing.

Wells Fargo Slapped With $3.1 Million Fine For ‘Reprehensible’ Handling Of One Mortgage

Ben Hallman

A federal judge who has fiercely criticized how big banks service home loans is fed up with Wells Fargo.

In a scathing opinion issued last week, Elizabeth Magner, a federal bankruptcy judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana, characterized as “highly reprehensible” Wells Fargo’s behavior over more than five years of litigation with a single homeowner and ordered the bank to pay the New Orleans man a whopping $3.1 million in punitive damages, one of the biggest fines ever for mortgage servicing misconduct.

“Wells Fargo has taken advantage of borrowers who rely on it to accurately apply payments and calculate the amounts owed,” Magner writes. “But perhaps more disturbing is Wells Fargo’s refusal to voluntarily correct its errors. It prefers to rely on the ignorance of borrowers or their inability to fund a challenge to its demands, rather than voluntarily relinquish gains obtained through improper accounting methods.”

The opinion reflects Magner’s disgust with tactics that Wells Fargo used to fight the case — and perhaps frustration with an appeals court ruling in a separate, but similar case, that overturned her order that would have forced Wells Fargo to audit and provide a full accounting for more than 400 home loans in her jurisdiction.

As The Huffington Post previously reported in a story co-published with The Center for Public Integrity, sources familiar with the preliminary findings said that the bank made costly accounting errors in the administration of practically all of those loans.

In an emailed statement, Tom Goyda, a Wells Fargo spokesman said: “The ruling handed down by the court in an individual bankruptcy case covers allegations going back more than six years and ignores significant changes in servicing practices that have occurred since that time. We believe that there are numerous factual and legal problems with the opinion and are reviewing our options regarding an appropriate legal response.”

Goyda said that an appeal of the ruling is “one option” the bank is considering.

Despite widespread reports that the banks and other companies that service home loans engaged in a range of misconduct — from ordering unnecessary property inspections to misapplying payments in a way that can lead to wrongful foreclosure — few judges have had the time, ability or inclination to do the kind of forensic analysis necessary to uncover wrongdoing in individual cases. For a non-accountant, reading a loan history is like interpreting hieroglyphics without a Rosetta Stone, and banks are often reluctant to turn them over in the first place.

The exceptions have tended to come in federal bankruptcy courts, where justices typically have more time to dig into loan accounts, and are much more likely to have the financial expertise necessary to do so. In an earlier interview, Magner said that she analyzed the loan files of more than 20 borrowers in her court and found mistakes in every instance.

“These are loans of working-class people who bought homes they could afford and whose loans were not administered correctly from an accounting perspective,” she said. “I think that these types of problems occur in almost every [defaulted] loan in the country.”

The current case involves Michael Jones of New Orleans. In a 2007 decision, Magner ruled that Wells Fargo improperly charged Jones more than $24,000 in fees, owing to a fundamental problem in the automated methodology the bank used to account for his loan payments.

After Jones fell into default, Magner ruled, the bank improperly applied his mortgage payments to interest and fees that had accrued instead of to principal, as required by his servicing contract. This triggered a waterfall of additional fees and interest that consumer lawyers call “rolling default.” Later, after Jones applied for bankruptcy, the bank continued to misapply payments, according to Magner’s opinion.

In the most recent opinion, Magner describes Wells Fargo’s litigation tactics, which involved filing dozens of briefs, motions and other filings that slowed down the proceedings to a snail’s pace, as “particularly vexing.” The tactics suggest that any other borrower who might wish to contest a fee or charge would find a legal challenge to the bank simply too burdensome.

And yet, Magner writes, it is only through litigation that the abuses can be uncovered. Calling Wells Fargo’s conduct “clandestine,” Magner wrote that the bank refused to communicate with Jones even as it was misdirecting payments for improper purposes.

“Only through litigation was this practice discovered,” Magner writes. “Wells Fargo admitted to the same practices for all other loans in bankruptcy or default. As a result, it is unlikely that most debtors will be able to discern problems with their accounts without extensive discovery.”

Magner wrote that the bank still refuses to come clean with homeowners about mistakes it made in the accounting of home loans. This is particularly troublesome in her district, where more than 80 percent of the borrowers who file for bankruptcy have incomes of less than $40,000, and consequently are often unable to hire the kind of legal firepower necessary to counter Wells Fargo’s army of lawyers.

“[W]hen exposed, [Wells Fargo] revealed its true corporate character by denying any obligation to correct its past transgressions and mounting a legal assault ensure it never had to,” Magner wrote.

[Famspear]

....It does NOT say, "you," "me," or the "mortgagor" in that clause, it says if it is PAID IN FULL...nothing about who must pay it. You should work on your reading skills, you REALLY should.

No, he doesn't need to work on his reading skills. YOU need to work on YOUR reading skills. You need to learn some of the basics of finance.

The "it" to which you refer is the borrower's obligation to pay the debt. The borrower's obligation is not "PAID IN FULL" or paid at all when the lender sells the note.

These are pretty basic financial concepts. They have been adequately explained to you.