Just had a meeting with my mortgage servicer's attorney

[tridim]

I had requested proof that my servicer actually holds my note and deed.

The lawyer entered the room in a huff and began yelling at me immediately. She brought a big man with her who I later found out was her paralegal, but I actually think he was just there to intimidate me.

I calmly asked to see the original note and deed. She showed me some papers, none of which I was ALLOWED TO TOUCH and none of which I could verify as "original". I basically got to view them for about 3 seconds. She was shuffling everything as I was trying to read, on purpose I assume.

The best part, none of the documents were ever transferred to my servicer. :) Never.

So, I asked for any shred of proof that she could provide that proved my servicer actually has the legal right to service and/or foreclose on my mortgage. She refused. "I don't have to show you that". I said, okay, you have no proof, neither does your client. Thank you.

Here's where she really lost it, she started turning red and accused me of spreading "Internet conspiracy theories". I told her I've been speaking with lawyers and reading about this in the New York Times. I thought her head was going to explode. I asked her why she was so upset, and she said "I'm not upset". I responded, "Well, you sure seem nervous for some reason". Left it at that.

I asked again if she or her client had any shred of proof that her client owns my mortgage. She said no.

So I said thank you, and left.

Now, to visit my attorney with this lovely new information. Gawd, I can't wait! :)

[Orrex]

1. Good news, but...

Why didn't you take your attorney with you?

[tridim]

2. I don't have one yet.

[westerebus]

32. You da bomb!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Orrex]

39. Ah!

In that case, doubly good for you!

I don't know your overall financial situation, but your county may offer free legal counsel to people of low income. Definitely worth checking out before you get back in the ring with your lenders' attorneys.


Good luck!

[emilyg]

3. k

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

4. Good for you ! keep it up, ??? what state are you in ?

[tridim]

7. Sorry, I'm not giving any more personal info on DU until this is all over.

[JuniperLea]

33. Smart move...

:toast:

[Jackpine Radical]

75. Good on ya and congratulations.

If they try to take you to court and lose, they will end up paying your legal fees--a factor to consider when seeking out a lawyer.

[Angry Dragon]

5. Good Luck

I hope you nail them to the wall and
then they slide into the ditch

[dkf]

6. Are you interested in a modification?

I imagine this might be great ammo.

[tridim]

9. Already tried, and failed because my servicer lost every document I sent them.

[truedelphi]

44. I am loving your story and want to mention how last week I attended

A neighbor's party for her lovely three year old. Naturally the stories of new parents involved those who are locked into high mortgages for homes that are now worth 60 to 40 % less than what they paid several years ago. And those stories compare sadly with those of their siblings who didn't have jobs or money a few years ago, but are now in a position to pick up a house for pennies on the dollar.

It seems that many people who are behind with their mortgages have the same story that you have. That they sent off the paperwork, and then a week or two later, they are being told, that no the paperwork never arrived (even though the arrival was confirmed by a phone call a few days after being sent.)

And other people told the story of being told by some outfit that in order to get re-modification program to work for them, they had to stop making their house payments. Only to be told a few weeks later, no you must have never missed a payment.

Anyway I am now reading that major Title Insurers are refusing to do business with GMAC mortgage.
That that one company has created so many problems with the way that the foreclosures are dalt with that the Title Insurers just insist on boycotting that firm.

[sabrina 1]

52. That's exactly what has happened to many people.

They believe they are eligible for a loan modification and after they stop making payments while they wait, (after fees being charged etc.) they are suddenly in foreclosure.

Since I read this, the exchanges between Tim Geithner and Elizabeth Warren this summer where she tried to get him to explain why so little of the money allocated to the program set up by the president to modify mortgage payments, had been used after 15 months. At the time I couldn't understand why she was being so persistent and he, so resistent and making silly excuses such as that 'even though we've helped only a few people, that is more than would have been helped otherwise. AND this was never intended to help everyone'. As Warren said then, 'no one expected it to help everyone'.

$50 billion was set aside, only $200 million had been spent as of June of this year.

Now we are learning that foreclosures were very profitable and they WANTED people to default. Did Geithner know what we are now learning? Was that why he defended not helping home-owners? Elizabeth Warren may want to go back and ask him that question now.

This is the biggest scam ever committed against the American people and this Administration wants to tell us we should stop the legislation, let them off the hook, because getting justice would be bad for the economy. It really is up to us now whether they get away with it or not.

[DoctorK]

71. profitable for whom?

"Now we are learning that foreclosures were very profitable and they WANTED people to default."

Can you explain this?

If the customer borrowed $250k from BoA, and still owes $243k, and the property won't sell (on the market 245 days at this point) at $195k, how are they going to profit by foreclosure?

I'm aware of the scams (HSBC for example) were a subsidiary was created, issued a mortgage and collected the fees then sold the mortgage wrapped in a security and simply folded up shop when the foreclosures started (the fees were profit, the loss goes to the holders of the security). But I don't see where you think a lender is profiting on a foreclosure. Can you explain?

[northernlights]

72. profitable for the banks

they don't have to sell the property on the nonexistant market. It gets picked up by the fed government (at our expense), they get their loan money back. Then they come back later, buy same house at auction for pennies on the dollar and try to sell it at a profit. If, after 2 years, they are unable to sell it, it goes back to the fed again. Rinse, repeat.

It's a total, complete scam. They make as much or more money foreclosing than collecting mortgage payments if the mortgage is renegotiated.

I just learned this a few days ago...I forget which article. If I find it again, I'll post the link...

[truedelphi]

78. Please do. I have been looking for the link as well.

Even though most people can see how unwilling the banks are to work on re-modifying the existing mortgage, people do not understand why.

And our Beloved Media certainly is not helping us connect the dots. But then, the Media is owned by Big Oil, Big Banks, and Big Insurance and DoD.

[DoctorK]

80. interested in the article as well

"they don't have to sell the property on the nonexistant market. It gets picked up by the fed government (at our expense), they get their loan money back. Then they come back later, buy same house at auction for pennies on the dollar and try to sell it at a profit."

I am unaware of by what process it is 'picked up by the fed government' and then bought by the bank.
When a foreclosure proceeds to auction the bank will almost always offer at least what they are owed and buy their own note. Other interested parties then contact the bank (if the bank won the auction) and buy it from the bank at that point for a price perhaps less than the loan.

[northernlights]

83. I'm sorry. I've looked and looked and can't find it. oops! just found it.

I will search more over the weekend. But I remember reading the article (or an excerpt) and thinking "now I understand why people keep saying they make more money by foreclosing than re-negotiating the mortgages under HAMP." And I pulled the specific paragraph and wrote something like now it all makes sense to me....

I can't look any more right now (serology exam tomorrow) but maybe tomorrow night, during crash and burn time...

edited to add that writing what I remembered helped me search again. It wasn't at all where I thought...I've read so much denninger and zero hedge lately I thought it was a response to one of those articles.

Instead, it was a homeless individuals take on the situation, so now I'm not sure about the validity. But it's worth looking at, if only to verify the details. Here is what that person wrote:

"Ask yourself, why would the bank want to work with you? How is that possibly in their best interest? They are trying to make the best of a bad situation and if they modify your loan they'll lose potential revenue and the federal government will only give them $1,500 for their trouble. What's $1,500 in the grand scheme of things, one, two or three payments? But if they throw you out, then, they can deduct that loan amount from their tax bill as a loss and they can take the deed to the troubled asset resources program and get new money in exchange for the deed to your house.

Money that the bank can use the very next day to invest in Chinese Real Estate or to invest on Wall Street. Then when the FDIC has accumulated enough houses in your area they will hold an auction and the bank can buy your house back for forty cents on the dollar, with zero percent interest and with no down payment and a with a clean title. Then if the bank still can't sell your house after two years the FDIC will give the bank a rebate on part of the purchase price. This is known as the condom and casket strategy, making money coming and going.

Is some light beginning to shine in? Are you beginning to understand why the banks want to push families out of homes they can't sell, just as fast as they can? Of course the banks have to modify some loans just to make it look like they are really trying. But it's not their fault if they don't get your paper work or you don't have an attorney or the phone company turns off your phone for non-payment."

[rfranklin]

64. All documents should be sent via certified return receipt mail...

That will nail them in court.

[mudplanet]

67. Simple solution. Send all mail registered comfirmation required.

As a social worker I often have to do that with relatively simple stuff just to make the bureaucracy sit up and take notice.

I get mail for clients all the time stating that their benefits have been cut off because they did not respond to the inquiry made to them which, of course, we did not receive. Or I get a letter of inquiry (asking for some documentation for the client to prove their eligibility) and in the envelope is a letter to someone in a completely different part of the state with a different name.

(I 'm not knocking the SS admin here - overall they do a good job.)

So I spend two dollars when responding so that I have evidence that it was sent and received.

[Vincardog]

59. Watch the bank come back with a modification now. Just to get you to affirm the debt.

That is their latest trick. They will TRY to get you to modify the loan and in the process agree that they are due the money. Talk to your attorney before you even read anything from them.

[Myrina]

63. I just completed a modification and noticed ...

.... that MERS is listed at the bottom of the documents as the 'final signer' ... which, if I understand correctly, means my 'new' mortgage will be packaged, robo-signed and chopped up and this un-entity, MERS, will be the owner of my mortgage.

Is that accurate?

[Vincardog]

70. Talk to your attorney

[Myrina]

74. I don't have an attorney - it's not that big of a deal.

I'm just curious. :shrug:

[pokercat999]

88. MERS doesn't own anything. They are an electronic clearing

house for the chopped up mortgages sold into MBS, they also have no employees but thousands of unpaid vice-presidents. At least that's how I understand this complicated subject.

[Junkdrawer]

Two points:

1.) I think you're right:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=9363964

2.) What if a judge decides, "Screw the fine points of the law, you're foreclosed"?
:shrug:

[elleng]

16. If a judges so decides, one 'takes it upstairs,' that is, appeals the decision.

[Junkdrawer]

18. What I'm afraid of is that the little pause in foreclosures...

was used to solidify the judiciary in agreeing to ignore the law.

We'll see....

[elleng]

26. 'Solidify the judiciary' doesn't happen; its not politics.

And from trial courts one goes UP, to levels that can get some press.

[tridim]

20. The attorney basically said #2 will happen.

She said all she has to do is "Wave the (fraudulent) note in the air and that's that". She even demonstrated how she would do it.

It's amazing to me that a lawyer actually thinks that kind of evidence is legal.

[Junkdrawer]

23. That's the problem all the foreclosure lawyers are facing.....

The Law (as written today) is on your side. They absolutely fucked up the chain of title. And they did it for greedy reasons (to avoid taxes and to get AAA ratings for their junk).

But judges are firmly on the side of the banks. At least, most judges - there are a few who believe in the law - just not many.

[elleng]

28. She doesn't 'think' its legal; she knows its not, and is betting she won't be challenged.

Challenge her!!!

[no_hypocrisy]

8. When you get a chance, call your attorney general . . .

[tridim]

10. Already in contact with them.

They requested I send them all of my evidence to date.

[elleng]

31. And inform your state and u.s. reps, and senators..

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

13. And your state department of banking

oversite too

[elleng]

11. Excellent! Write this in a 'Memo to File,' with date, time, and names,

include every detail you recall. Do it immediately!

And GOOD LUCK!

[pokercat999]

12. I wish you had video recorded this meeting. I wouldn't be

surprised to learn that they "produce" the docs at a later meeting.

Good luck, please keep us posted.

[MedicalAdmin]

66. I record every meeting I have with anyone elses lawyer or legal rep.

Period. And I don't ask permission. Usually I ask if I can video the meeting and if they refuse I will just shrug and put the camera down (it's important just to shrug - don't SAY ANYTHING) and then I use one of these. http://www.spygadgets.com/pen-recorders.aspx Make sure you start every meeting with introductions so everyone says their name, who they represent and who they work for, yourself included. If they don't volunteer the info then ask. At worst they can refuse which is also damning. Make sure you mention the date, time and location out loud.

I think if you look around and check reviews you can find one that works for you and is less expensive than these. Good luck.

Make sure you start every meeting with introductions so everyone says their name, who they represent and who they work for, yourself included. If they don't volunteer the info then ask. At worst they can refuse which is also damning. Make sure you mention the date, time and location out loud.

[geek tragedy]

14. Do you have an attorney already? nt

[ixion]

15. w00t!!! way to go!!

Give'em hell, and make'em show that note. :applause:

[Frustratedlady]

17. Good for you. Don't back down until you know there is no problem.

People are scared when they have to go through this, so I'm sure the attorney wasn't prepared for your questions.

Keep us informed when you can.

[tridim]

19. My fear is turning into strength, I can feel it.

Honestly I'm still scared, and stressed obviously, but I also know this is something I have to do as an American citizen. It's my right and duty.

I have an image of the Scales Of Justice in my head, and it's still balanced. I don't think I could live with myself if I just gave up.

[dixiegrrrrl]

22. Psst...

If it comes to that, I am hearing that bankruptcy courts are also good places to claim there is no legal owner of the note.
Denninger did several pieces on that recently, you might want to review his site.
His thinking is you do not owe money in a bankruptcy to anyone who cannot show legal rights to the money/loan.

congrats on facing your fears!!!!!

And, getting things in writing via letters remains key. They can always deny the meeting.

[virgogal]

38. What is Denninger's site.? I find this all quite interesting. Thanks.

[dixiegrrrrl]

40. market-ticker.org

at the bottom of the page, you can click "next" to go back thru the pages, or you can look at the archives
under the topic of housing.

He has been breaking the foreclosure thing for months and months.

PS: He is a libertarian, I ignore his politics and find his money information to be exceedingly accurate and intelligent.

[virgogal]

41. Thanks----I've already bookmarked it. What a mess,huh?

[barbtries]

60. don't give up

even if they beat you down the road, you are fighting the good fight. :thumbsup:

never give up.

[MineralMan]

21. I'll be keeping my fingers crossed for you.

I wish you good fortune in this.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

24. I'm curious how you got a meeting with the attorney?

Did she think you would roll over?

[tridim]

30. I call them a lot.

Today they finally said I could come in to see the note.

Shocking, since my servicer still claims to hold the original note "in our vault".

[NanceGreggs]

25. I've been a court reporter for 25 years ...

... and the minute a lawyer starts "shuffling papers" and being insufferably rude, they might as well hold up a banner that says: "Okay, I got nuthin' here, folks. So let's just all pretend not to notice."

Hang in there - so far, you're doin' fine!

[elleng]

29. Great info, and great encouragement! Thanks!

[tridim]

34. Thanks for the encouragement.

I could definitely tell something was odd as it was happening. Nothing was normal about that meeting.

[NanceGreggs]

36. Oh, I hear ya!

It's an old saying in the law biz:

If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the podium.

What you witnessed was a pounding of the podium - as neither the facts nor the law were applicable.

Please keep us all informed as this matter goes ahead - as you can see, you have a LOT of people in your corner!

[SlimJimmy]

58. Agreed (nt)

[Lint Head]

27. Excellent! Please keep us DUer's up on what happens.

[JuniperLea]

35. Well done, tridim!

Very, very well done! Boy she sure wanted to scare something out of you, didn't she?! I'm so happy to see it didn't work! You played this scene like a Shakespearian Oscar winner! The lawyers opening huff gave her away, and I'm so glad you saw that. They got nothing! I'm happy to see Nance weigh in above... that makes me feel even better about this.

Keep pumped, but stay cool! May as well drive them nutty with your chilly non-response to their scare tactics!

[grahamhgreen]

37. Holy Sh*t! You are awesome!

And always remember to record these things....

[felix_numinous]

42. Good job

but I have learned the hard way to get everything in writing or record it, to prevent them from denying what they said during the meeting. If you have to meet them again, take a witness if not your lawyer. Good luck.

[jtuck004]

43. Please keep us updated. This is better than Dancing with the Stars!

Then again, most things are.

Seriously, though, good work!! :toast: And do keep us updated, so we can chortle along with you.

You have got a backup plan, I hope.

[pa28]

45. Hey tridim good to hear your update.

This information goes beyond anybody who is in foreclosure or who might be. The issue is relevant to anybody with a mortgage as it's the biggest investment most people will ever make. From what we've heard about mortgages notes bouncing around like volleyballs and multiple MBS investors being promised title to the same properties the validity of all our titles at the end of the term might be in question. Personally I'd rather get to the bottom of this now than be fighting a law suit after I've retired the "debt" or fighting with a defunct title insurer years later because the true title holder made a claim in court that happened to stick.

Writing about your experience is a public service and I hope you keep us posted.

[The Uncola]

46. Excellent!

Here's hoping you put the screws to the thieving bastards!

:toast:

[NYC_SKP]

47. I love how this looks to be turning out in your favor, tridem!

Keep up the good work and I'm glad you have what seem to be competent representation.

I look forward to hearing more, go get 'em!

:toast:

[snot]

48. Here's my take:

Regardless of what many claim, if you haven't actually paid the mortgage loan, you probably still owe it to someone.

HOWEVER, given the confusion, you should be entitled to insist on reasonable proof as to who actually owns the note at this point, since otherwise you could end up paying the wrong person.

;)

But do consult a good attorney.

[sabrina 1]

54. Well, that may not be entirely true.

if you haven't actually paid the mortgage loan, you probably still owe it to someone.

What is now being revealed is that they wanted people to default, which is why they refused to help with loan modifications, OR pretended to, telling people to stop paying until the details were worked out, and THEN forced them into foreclosure.

Why would banks want people to default? I couldn't figure that out when my friend tried to pay while waiting and had her checks returned to her. It didn't make sense.

But NOW it does. You would have to have a criminal mind to even guess at the reasons why. And since most of us don't, we had to wait until court cases were filed and witnesses deposed, and whistle-blowers began to talk.


Most people assumed that when someone defaulted on their mortgage, lenders suffered a loss. But now we know this is not true in untold (no one knows how many) numbers of cases.

It was a scheme set up where mortgages were divided up and distributed around into different 'packages' for investors to invest in. Then there was the now infamous 'triple A' ratings etc.

Insurance cos were set up to back these packages. So, if a homeowner defaulted, the loss was paid for, sometimes multiple times by several different insurers. By the time the lender goes to court to collect the property, they have already been paid, over and over again.

Borrowers have been distraught and puzzled by the refusals of lenders to accept lower payments but when you start to understand the ponzi scheme, you could why the most profit came from forcing people into defaulting.

I don't know the circumstances of the OPs situation. But, you are correct, she does need an attorney and IF her lender has already profited from her home, she may very well get it free and clear, as it is most likely under those circumstances that the paper work is fraudulent. This is going to be the latest issue that judges will be dealing with. Real fraud, attempts to take property free and clear that lenders have maybe profited from multiple times fraudulently and are now lying to the court, claiming a loss.

[kitkat65]

79. I'm curious if there's any way to find out if a claim like this has been paid on a property

Where could you find that kind of information?

[sabrina 1]

82. That's a good question. I only came across this information

this past week as another DUer posted it with some links, in an OP I had written about the fact that most Americans have Third World access to legal representation especially in Civil cases. Which means that most of those thrown out of their homes never had due process. Iow, that fact was especially helpful to the predators, victims with no representation.

My computer is acting up right now, or I would post a link to those comments. However, some of the Economic blogs have been doing great work on this story. The Washington Blog, I think the URL is http://www.washingtonblogspot.com, has been really following this story and they have written about this scheme of collecting on the same homes multiple times. I think much of this information is just coming out.

The Naked Capitalist is another blog that has been great at compiling information also. They have comment sections I believe, so you might be able to post a question on a few of them.

I would like to know also, as I have a friend who was foreclosed on earlier this year. We knew that something was wrong, but couldn't do much about it except to follow Marcy Kaptur's advice and ask for the note. Her request was ignored both by the judge and the Wells Fargo Law Mill. However, we knew her mortgage had been transferred four times and that MERS was involved in two of those transfers. Now, the Wells Fargo Attorney, who refused to respond to her calls and letters, and then did not respond to her attorney when she finally got one, has been sued under the RICO Act in NY for fraud. So, it's personal for me too.

She is hoping to be able to be a part of that lawsuit, which I believe is asking that all homes foreclosed on illegally by Steven Baum, the attorney who owned the law mill, be returned to their previous owners.

If you check out the Florida Class Action Suit against MERS and another Law Mill attorney there, you might find some info on this. Much of the latest revelations of just how corrupt the whole Ponzi Scheme was, is coming from the depositions taken in that case.

If I find out, I will post it here at DU.

[guruoo]

49. You should use one of these

[LiberalArkie]

51. I use my iPhone for things like this,, no one notices when I take it out of my pocket and lay it

on the desk.. (turn it to voice record before putting it on desk)

[jeff47]

77. It should be noted

That in some states all parties being recorded must consent to the recording...check your local laws or end up like Linda Trip.

[Vinca]

50. Wow - it's a shame you couldn't have gotten video of your meeting.

They must have been shocked as hell when an intelligent, lucid human being confronted them with their fraud.

[DesertDiamond]

53. Yoooooou ROCK! Yooooooou ROCK!

[KansDem]

55. Does this mean you own your home now??!!!

:woohoo:

Nobody's been able to answer this question, but if nobody has the original note and deed, who owns the home?

[tridim]

56. I have my original note and deed.

Every mortgage holder should have these docs in the closing packet.

I don't know who owns my house, but it's now 100% clear that it is not my servicing bank. It NEVER was, even when I was paying my monthy payments to them in 2008-09.

[JoshieR]

62. If the court rules in your favor...

...that the servicing bank never actually owned the title of the home, can you recoup the mortgage payments made to the servicing bank?

[Fire1]

57. If I could've been a fly on the wall!! LOL!!! n/t

[bluesmail]

61. Power To The People! (eom)

[tridim]

65. *** Bad news. I just spoke with an attorney who is very familiar with the issue.

She was extremely helpful, but said the bank will fight me with every lawyer they have. She said I wont win, regardless of evidence.

She said that a "deed in lieu" is my best hope. Handing the keys to the bank (that doesn't own the mortgage) and walking away. Looks like my bank is getting my house for free, for the second time.

Wish I had better news, but there it is.

Justice is dead in America. There will be no funeral service, just move along.

[MedicalAdmin]

68. Get a second opinon.

Not all lawyers are created equal and the one you consulted might just be getting most of her income working for the banks.

Maybe not, but don't give up until you are sure. It's your house. Would you give up if you came home one day and someone was sitting in the living room eating popcorn and claiming to own the house? No, of course not.

And that is what is happening here. Don't give up yet.



And here's the best legal advice I EVER got - document, document, document. Write everything down and sign it and date it. It doesn't have to be fancy but it does have to be factual. No opinions although you can say that the lawyer acted as if she was nervous and shuffled papers without allowing me to look at them (Or the lawyer appeared to be nervous; she checked her watch daily, yelled, etc) always tie any opinion to an observation that backs that opinion up.Your feelings are entirely non admissable UNLESS the other party does something that a reasonable person would find threatening -- like an actual threat. It doesn't have to be fancy. I've seen documents that were just recorded in a spiral bound students notebook. Just use pen and fill in every line. Sign and date every entry.

Use recording when you can and DO NOT ask for permission to do so. YOu have every right to record. It might not be admissable but a judge may very welll listen to it anyway. Besides anything that causes a judge to get pissed off with the oposing lawyer is good.

Don't give up - get that second opnion.

[tridim]

69. I have one more recommended attorney to call, and I probably will.

She's isn't working for the banks, her website is loaded with foreclosuregate articles, she was just being honest about my chances.

Thanks for the advice.

[elleng]

73. I suggest that you go 'political' with this, as much as I hate to say it.

To your representatives, to the press, dump on the bank big time. Yes, they'll fight, but with the facts against thm, don't let them win. And take note of what Nance Greggs has said.





:thumbsup:

[grasswire]

81. don't give up

Contact Michael Moore. Start a facebook page about this. Contact your local investigative reporter.

There are housing advocates who will help you. And low-cost legal clinics.

Hell. Tell us what to do. Letters? Phone calls? Street theater?

[jtuck004]

84. Well, that depends on how you define "win".

If by win they mean you get a free house that you had previously agreed to pay for, now things have changed, etc - then they may be phrasing it correctly.

But, if by win you mean that you could find a legal-aid attorney or someone who has a source of income other than you that could delay your move date for 6 months, a year, or two years, while you are able to put together a backup plan, some cash in a metal box for an apartment, a roomate elsewhere - something - then perhaps you can win.

Things are changing rapidly out there, and it might not be a bad thing to figure out something else if life hasn't allowed you to sustain what you have. But get out of this what you can...

[Yo_Mama]

89. She is right

I'm sorry. I understand that you are in this position because of job loss. I am sure this is a big blow, and certainly an undeserved and unexpected one.

A deed in lieu probably is your best option as long as the original mortgage was recorded. Everything else is almost certainly meaningless - in the end you will lose if that mortgage is recorded and you have not been able to pay the mortgage. Even if the mortgage wasn't recorded you still owe the note, but it would give you bargaining power. The deed in lieu should be a better option because it pretty much guarantees that you will be able to get a GSE mortgage just two years down the line as long as you qualify in other respects.

The issue of whether your servicer owns your mortgage or not is quite meaningless. Take Fannie, for instance. Every loan they buy is serviced by another entity. Servicing is a contractual affair between the owner of the note and the servicer. As long as you make the payments to the servicer you are okay. In fact, most uniform notes have a clause like this:
"I will make my monthly payments at _____________________________________________________ or at a different place if required by the Note Holder."

And there is also the clause about transferring the note. The servicer acts for the note holder in the foreclosure proceeding just as it does when collecting payments.

In court, a certified copy of the note is just as good as the original note. That's generally the way it is done. The original note should be in a vault. If it is in a security the documents are supposed to be kept by another entity, which could be the Trustee and could be a contracted service, i.e. the "Repository". Also, it is perfectly legal to digitize the image as long as it is done so the image cannot be altered. It is also legal to transfer ownership electronically, and one of the authorities for this is UETA. You do not say the state you are in but most states have enacted UETA. I have linked the UETA website so you can check for yourself. Note that a couple states have not passed the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act but have passed other statutes. This website will give you the link to that code by state:
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13484

The point of all that is that MERS and trading mortgages via electronic transactions is legal. It does not cloud or obscure ownership so long as it is done correctly, which of course is true also for a sale by paper. The physical paper is not required to go anywhere to legally transfer ownership. Foreclosure procedures should require the recording of those transactions in the land records, but the transfer of interests in electronic paper is covered in various aspects by the Uniform Commercial Code, the ESign Act and UETA, as well as other state statutes.

Best of luck. There are other houses and hopefully you will have a long and happy and ultimately financially secure life after this.

[geckosfeet]

76. A coworker was wondering why lawyers are not getting in on this wholesale.

Whether you are behind on a mortgage or not, if it can be demonstrated that no one actually holds the mortgage on your house, I believe you become the owner by eminent domain - or possession is 9/10 of the law.

Lawyers simply need to demonstrate that the legal requirements for transferring mortgage ownership were not fulfilled by 'lending' institutions. The the lawyer can split the proceeds with happy mortgage free homeowner.

[Crazy Dave]

86. You own nothing in this country unless you are wealthy

A land developer can have your local city or county evict you from your property if they decide that's where they want to build a new condo or strip mall.

Wikkipedia:
Eminent domain (United States), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia) or expropriation (South Africa and Canada) is an action of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent.

[tripfeiff]

85. The who process just sucks

My brother just bought him and his wife's first house and it took them almost a month longer than the bank guessed it would. They got delayed two weeks because some lender was being forced bureaucratically to look at every large withdrawl they made from bank accounts in the last 6 months. They just got married and consolidated accounts so the federal government spent three weeks reviewing the personal finances of my brother and wife because they thought they might be money launderers. The system needs to get cleaned up.

[CRH]

87. Why are you asking for proof of who holds your note and deed?

Are your in foreclosure for non payment, or are you trying to modify prior to foreclosure action?

It is not normal for a bank or mortgage servicer to initiate actions until six months of payments have been missed. Often it is longer than that, up to a year or longer.

You have stated you have applied for mortgage modifications, but the servicer has lost all your documents. Did you contact the servicer for modification before foreclosure notice? Is the value to loan ratio underwater on your mortgage? All of these are relevant questions if you appear in court.

Exactly who owns the note and deed is a technicality that will not excuse the delinquency, in the end. The courts can huff and puff at bad paperwork, reprimand for false statements and signatures, hold in contempt for fraudulent submission of documents; but in the end none of this will absolve delinquency of payment of the original contract agreement. The debt will stand at the end of the day, and if the house itself is the only collateral, it will be transfered to the issuer of the note and holder of the deed.

If on the other hand you are trying to modify terms before foreclosure, and you can demonstrate an ability to pay a reasonable modification, you should proceed with legal council. The courts will not sponsor deadbeats or aid and abet a wrongful forfeit of property. Bad form will not alter the substance, of the complaint.