Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Are These Passive Trusts, and if So, What Does That Mean?

Are These Passive Trusts, and if So, What Does That Mean?

Ratings: (0)|Views: 56|Likes:
Published by johngault
May Securitization Trusts Own Real Estate?
May Securitization Trusts Own Real Estate?

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: johngault on Jun 16, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





and even if they're not, can they now own real property?Why MERS? MERS wasn't created just to save some sheckles on recording fees.It goes much further, even beyond what we generally throw around. MERS wascreated because they needed a straw man, someone, to go after the collateralsince these trusts may not hold real property, certainly not after thecut-off date, nor can their interests be changed from X to owning realproperty. The trusts can't do it, long and short. Even if the truststhemselves WERE a party entitled to a credit, they can't make the creditbids, since doing so would find them in title to real estate as the granteeof the dot trustee's deed. THAT's why (well, one reason) there's the creditbid assignment to someone else, usually the servicer.MERS was a handy stand-in-catch-all until the-all-but-ignored-by-us ConsentOrder. But even that was problematic - another chapter of this sorry tale.These trusts are passive, and can't do much of anything, including owningreal property, not even in satisfaction of an alleged debt.But the banksterspretend they are using the credit bid of the trusts to make credit bidswhich are then assigned to someone else, and as I said, generally theservicers. I'd like to see some supporting documentation for the authorityto 1) make a credit bid and 2) assign it to another party.If an agency agreement exists which beyond a doubt authorizes an agent todo an act, here a credit bid and assignment, if the agent takes title, it'sthe same as if the principal has title, and these trusts cannot do that,imo even if it were found that the trusts own the notes and the interestsin their collateral instruments: a passive trust has no way to enforce thenotes and dots. Imo, the truth is, they don't have to because someone,including FNMA when FNMA is the issuer, has guaranteed payment or torepurchase. I don't know all the subrogation stuff, even the piece Ionce knew, other than to recall that the AIGs couldn't have subrogation
rights and why that was.If these trusts are the passive trusts I believe, this would also explain(again one of who knows how many reasons) some alleged dot trustees haveattempted to sell the lien (abbreviated) instead of making a title transferby deed, which is really the only thing a dot trustee is authorized to do( a dot trustee is authorized to quiet title, long and short of that one.)If I'm right about these trusts being passive and what that means (and ifso, I note because it's bull the plan included malice of forethought), theonly thing anyone can do about any real (key word) default, anyone beingthe banksters, is repurchase the loan with no loss to the investors.I think.Right after that, they'd be free to make a credit bid in their ownright. Knowing I'm no where near brilliant, and therefore could betotally off center here (and would be interested in any opposing vews),if the trusts are passive and I have correctly interpreted theramifications, I wonder why the attorneys representing investors fail tomake these arguments, that is, arguments in favor of making thebanksters bear any loss the banksters created, and not just make argumentsbased on "poor quality" of the loans. Poor alright - poor business plan.Not only poor but untenable if you're an investor.Maybe they can't, other than by way of guarantees made. But then, theguarantees seems like a rather big deal to me. Anyone?About MERS foreclosing pre-Consent Order: when foreclosures where done andthe successful bidder was the beneficiary- with that handy credit bid (!)- MERS as ben or MERS as agent of ben should have been in title to every oneof those properties. Anyone interested, here's my take on how merger worksregarding foreclosures:http://sourceoftitle.com/blog_node.aspx?uniq=969 (jg merger blog)

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->