Posted on 11/24/2007 6:05:40 PM PST by Travis McGee
Financial Nonsense is not the first to cover this, so discrediting the messenger will only go so far.
Have the others covered it as badly as this? It would be hard to believe.
This blog is hardly the only source of information on this ruling. The story came out in major media over a week ago. The judge told Deutsche specifically on October 10 that the foreclosure actions would be dismissed if Deutsche didn’t produce the actual documents showing they owned the mortgage notes. They showed up without them 3 weeks later and the judge kept his promise. I gather that the issue here is not the mortgage notes themselves, but rather the documentation proving that Deutsche actually owned the mortgage notes in question on or before the date it made the foreclosure filing. Deutsche was able to some up with “intent to convey” documents, but never with actual closing documents — scary considering that the mortgage pool in question is less than 18 months old.
The tale of the missing documentation. LOL. This has happened before. The boom/bust of the 1970’s was full of this kind of crap. I know, I audited REITS and found, you guessed it, mortgage loans galore with no documentation.
You hit the nail on the head with the first part of that. Not so sure about the second part.
If DB sold interests in this mortgage pool trust it created, without actually owning every single one of the mortgages in question, their next logical step is to try to quietly pay off the defaulted mortgage notes with cash from DB's own pockets. If they can do it quietly enough, the SEC just might be too busy with other things to remember to send the federal marshalls over to handcuff and haul off the DB guys who authorized the sale of securities via fraudulent representations of underlying collateral.
What legal precedent was set, regarding resolution of legal standing, as far as title?
Yes, the Canadian National Post agrees with your statement regarding outright fraud in the subprime mess..
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=39d470d5-e383-4991-bdb5-0abb1f6a94bd
The only precedent that I know of was that banking laws were changed to force banks to carry such BS on their books at reduced or zero value instead of continuing to carry them at mortgage value. Most of the stuff was worth 10 - 50% of the book value. Both due to lack of documentation and lack of a market.
And at the time the only securitization was in conforming loans under GNMA and such.
I guess my main point is that all of these scheduled interest rate hikes and losses aren’t locked into concrete. People on both sides will make adjustments to minimize their pain. That is, it is a dynamic situation and not one that has to follow a fixed path to ruin as implied by the article.
As I recall the court ordered that they provide proof of ownership, hence standing in the court, and was given substantial time to do so. The court ruled against them only after that time had expired and they had failed to provide it. It is pretty clear they don’t have the actual documents required and that they were not able to acquire them in a reasonable period of time provided by the court.
I have not laugh so hard in a long time. That was so funny but true. Thanks for the link.
It’s not a blog - next time try actually taking a look at the site and reading some of teh articles prior to engaging your slack jaw.
Lurking’
“Do you have any idea what the “collateralized” in “collateralized debt obligations” means?”
And the point of the entire article IS... they can’t find out who owns the collateral.
Do you actually bother to read the articles or just shoot from the lip.
Lurking’
did you read this one Petron????
how is it wrong???
details, we need to know the details of your analysis.
Lurking’
they tried that already - NO LUCK wise guy!
you should really try to read up about your subject
Lurking’
Or perhaps someone with a loan that is connected to Deutche Bank who hopes they can get away with not paying it...
Econom/Credit/Housing Issues Ping List
If you want on or off this list let me know.
Good luck getting any details out of her.
Petro is more the sideline cheerleader type.
.....millions of homes will be in default but the banks prevented from seizing them as collateral assets to resell.....
The solution for DB and others is simple and assured.
Carry the deed of trust into court. It takes at least 90 days to forclose and during that ample time, the deed of trust can be moved from the depository to the DB vault
.... Start with the fact that they were unable to produce the required paperwork in court, .....
They deliberately chose not to produce the Deed of Trust because for many years the courts have followed the precedent of not requiring it to be waved in the face of the judge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.