Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred

[supersleuth]

Vincenta,

 

Agreed. And it's likely to get worse. There's legislation due to be passed soon where corporations will be able to buy up the law firms. Currently, only a qualified lawyer is allowed to own a share (i.e be a partner) in a law firm. But once corporations can buy up shares in law firms and own the law firms, then the law firms will be conflicted to the extent that it is unlikely to give legal advice that runs contrary to the interests of their corporate owners.

 

So...can you imagine what it will be like when it is the banks and financial institutions that own the law firms??? Can you imagine what the likes of TESCO/ASDA/SAINSBURY'S etc., will be like when they will claim to be giving us consumer legal advice whilst at the same time giving us banking services????

 

Get ready to see loads of mergers and acquistions of law firms when the law is passed such that the corporations will end up monopolising the law - of course, when the legislation is passed, the media will say that the purpose of the legislation is to help all us little mortals gain more access to justice - and that it will make legal services cheaper for the consumer - pleassseeee spare me the rhetoric - or am I being too cynical?

 

In the meantime, you're right - we have to try to use the rules that they created for themselves and turn their own rules against them.

Edited March 30, 2009 by supersleuth

[JonCris]

Correct SS but for me the most insidious fact is that untrained non-lawyers will be allowed to 'manage' such firms. Solicitor rules are so complicated & extensive that many experienced solicitors mistakenly fall foul of them.

 

The thought of these managers should scare the hell out of consumers. No doubt in few months, or if we are lucky years, there'll be blood on the carpet & the cost of compensation for negligence will rocket due to the inevitable increase in claims

 

Obviously previously there must have been a reason why practice managers had to have been qualified practising lawyers................. but I can't think why.............. oh I know it's come back to me........because they HAVE to understand how to practice law.............& not just where the paper clips are

Edited March 30, 2009 by JonCris

[supersleuth]

Hi JonCris,

 

Negligence is already rife in the legal profession but you're right, negligence would get worse...however, as a claim in negligence will run counter to the corporate owner's interests, do you think that in practice it will still be possible to bring such a claim? The lawyers already all stick together when it comes to negligence claims against lawyers so in theory, it would probably become even harder to bring a professional negligence claim.

 

It would have to be done pro bono or by someone like Mrs Wilson....oh well, we've always got the Solictor's Regulatory Authority and complaints to the Law Society...does any consumer have confidence in these institutions????

 

It may sound like I'm being defeatest, but...I'm still going for your "blood on the carpet" option.

 

BTW: There's always humour as a great resource to survive the rot - you really tickled me with the paper clips reference!!!

Edited March 30, 2009 by supersleuth

[Justhadenough]

CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THE LAW SOCIETY IS UNABLE TO HELP

 

 

· We are unable to give you legal advice, or a second opinion on the legal advice you have already received. If you are unhappy with advice received or disagree with it, you will have to obtain a second opinion from another solicitor.

 

· We cannot adjudicate on complicated issues of fact or law, or comment on the outcome of your court case.

· We do not have the power to order your solicitor to pay compensation to you for professional negligence. *(See NOTE).

 

• We are unable to compel a solicitor to take on your case if s/he does not want to do so.
  

 

• We cannot tell your solicitor how to handle your case or maintain a monitoring role on your case.
  

 

• We do not have the power to investigate a complaint about other branches of the legal profession, such as District Judges, Lay Magistrates, Barristers and County Court or High Court Judges.
  

 

• We cannot investigate a complaint if the work done by the solicitor is under a practicing certificate issued in another country e.g. in England, Wales, Scotland or the Republic of Ireland. (You should contact the Law Society in the relevant jurisdiction).
  

 

• We cannot investigate complaints about solicitors who are not doing legal work.
  

 

• We cannot investigate and provide redress where you are complaining about someone else’s solicitor. (You should discuss any concerns with your own solicitors).
  

NOTE: *Negligence is generally a mistake made by your solicitor, which causes you as the client to suffer financial loss. If you believe your solicitor has acted negligently, and you wish to pursue a claim you can do so by instructing another solicitor to pursue the matter through the Courts on your behalf.

Where your complaint involves both inadequate service and allegations of negligence, then the negligence claim should be concluded before the complaint is pursued. Often the facts which give rise to negligence are the same as those which give rise to the complaint to the Society, and if the negligence claim is resolved successfully in your favour it may not always be appropriate or necessary to pursue the complaint of inadequate service.

[JonCris]

Hi JonCris,

 

Negligence is already rife in the legal profession but you're right, negligence would get worse...however, as a claim in negligence will run counter to the corporate owner's interests, do you think that in practice it will still be possible to bring such a claim? The lawyers already all stick together when it comes to negligence claims against lawyers so in theory, it would probably become even harder to bring a professional negligence claim.

 

It would have to be done pro bono or by someone like Mrs Wilson....oh well, we've always got the Solictor's Regulatory Authority and complaints to the Law Society...does any consumer have confidence in these institutions????

 

It may sound like I'm being defeatest, but...I'm still going for your "blood on the carpet" option.

 

BTW: There's always humour as a great resource to survive the rot - you really tickled me with the paper clips reference!!!

 

I agree with your comment re: negligence............ but think how much worse it's going to get.

 

Incidentally I use as my template for disaster the Will writing companies many of whom who have by now fleeced the consumer........or at the very least written Wills that have been alarmingly deficient when it comes to probate

[supersleuth]

Hi Justhadenough,

 

Thanks for the post...It's confirmed then, the Law Society just cannot investigate anything.

[midge61]

It seems that Eurosail 2007 and Eurosail 2006 are in bother

 

Market News

 

Market News

 

Market News

[Smarterchick]

Laymans/womans language?? wotsit mean?

[supersleuth]

Good find Midge. In laymans terms:

 

The Eurosail 2006-4NP Notice and the Eurosail Prime UK07-A Notice refer to those relevant securitisation transactions.

 

Contained in those transaction were some DERIVATIVES contracts such as e.g. a credit default swap and or a currency swap. This Derivative contracts are like insurances against movements in currencies and/or a default of a creditor. These DERVATIVE contract have a MASTER AGREEMENT and then some other contractual documents that attach to the MASTER AGREEMENT. Eurosail had entered into these DERIVATIVE contracts with LEHMANS (who are now bankrupt).

 

These two notices tell the investors that the SPV Eurosail have CANCELLED their MASTER AGREEMENT contract with Lehmans. Which means that Eurosail do not have to perform their obligations under the contract. Essentially it can be thought of as cancelling your insurance policy.

 

HOWEVER, THE OTHER NOTICE IS MUCH MORE INTERESTING

The Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL Plc is a notice that there is a real threat that there may be court action taken.

 

In fact, as the notice states that there is a hearing on 11 March 2009, then it is not just a threat of "possible court proceedings" - there ARE ACTUAL COURT PROCEEDINGS.

 

It seems that the investors who hold the Class A3 Notes in that SPV want their money now i.e. they want an Enforcement Notice that declares "the Notes to be immediately due and repayable prior to the forthcoming Interest Payment Date on 13 March 2009". Note that this is an enforcement notice in accordance with the contractual provisions of the securitisations and is not to be confused with a court enforcement order. The securitisation has contractual provisions that state that when the Trustee serves a (contractual) Enforcment Notice that will trigger the contractual provision that will require full redemption of the notes.

 

They want to exercise their contractual rights to compel the the Trustee to serve an Enforcement Notice. Once an Enforcement Notice is served and/or if the court grants the investors a court order to compel the Trustee to serve the Enforcement Notice - then, in accordance with the contractual documents of the securisation, all the outstanding money that is due to be paid to the Investors by the SPV (Eurosail) becomes immediately repayable. This means that all the capital and interest payments owed to the Investors under the note become immediately repayable.

 

The hearing was heard on 11 March 2009 - so the outcome of that court decision will have been made by now.

 

What it means to you - if court did grant the order that a contractual Enforcement Notice is to be served by the Trustee then the Notes become immediately payable in full. Thus, the SPV would have to raise the cash to redeem the notes and the only way the SPV can raise the cash is to LIQUIDATE YOUR HOME! as the only source of income that the SPV has is YOU!!!

 

As we don't know what the outcome of the hearing was, can't say whether or not this eventuality has manifest...but at least you know the devil that you're facing and the risks that you have been caused to face due to the securitisation process.

 

SPML may step up their repossessions.....not because you are a bad borrower, but because Eurosail is a bad borrower who needs to redeem its notes.

 

Supersleuth

Edited March 31, 2009 by supersleuth

[scedminc]

Hi SS,

 

That has made me feel a whole lot better. Thats the securitisation that I think I am under lol. Lets see what happens from here then.

 

Great find Midge.

 

 

Good find Midge. In laymans terms:

 

The Eurosail 2006-4NP Notice and the Eurosail Prime UK07-A Notice refer to those relevant securitisation transactions.

 

Contained in those transaction were some DERIVATIVES contracts such as e.g. a credit default swap and or a currency swap. This Derivative contracts are like insurances against movements in currencies and/or a default of a creditor. These DERVATIVE contract have a MASTER AGREEMENT and then some other contractual documents that attach to the MASTER AGREEMENT. Eurosail had entered into these DERIVATIVE contracts with LEHMANS (who are now bankrupt).

 

These two notices tell the investors that the SPV Eurosail have CANCELLED their MASTER AGREEMENT contract with Lehmans. Which means that Eurosail do not have to perform their obligations under the contract. Essentially it can be thought of as cancelling your insurance policy.

 

HOWEVER, THE OTHER NOTICE IS MUCH MORE INTERESTING

 

The Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL Plc is a notice that there is a real threat that there may be court action taken.

 

In fact, as the notice states that there is a hearing on 11 March 2009, then it is not just a threat of "possible court proceedings" - there ARE ACTUAL COURT PROCEEDINGS.

 

It seems that the investors who hold the Class A3 Notes in that SPV want their money now i.e. they want an Enforcement Notice that declares "the Notes to be immediately due and repayable prior to the forthcoming Interest Payment Date on 13 March 2009". Note that this is an enforcement notice in accordance with the contractual provisions of the securitisations and is not to be confused with a court enforcement order. The securitisation has contractual provisions that state that when the Trustee serves a (contractual) Enforcment Notice that will trigger the contractual provision that will require full redemption of the notes.

 

They want to exercise their contractual rights to compel the the Trustee to serve an Enforcement Notice. Once an Enforcement Notice is served and/or if the court grants the investors a court order to compel the Trustee to serve the Enforcement Notice - then, in accordance with the contractual documents of the securisation, all the outstanding money that is due to be paid to the Investors by the SPV (Eurosail) becomes immediately repayable. This means that all the capital and interest payments owed to the Investors under the note become immediately repayable.

 

The hearing was heard on 11 March 2009 - so the outcome of that court decision will have been made by now.

 

What it means to you - if court did grant the order that a contractual Enforcement Notice is to be served by the Trustee then the Notes become immediately payable in full. Thus, the SPV would have to raise the cash to redeem the notes and the only way the SPV can raise the cash is to LIQUIDATE YOUR HOME! as the only source of income that the SPV has is YOU!!!

 

As we don't know what the outcome of the hearing was, can't say whether or not this eventuality has manifest...but at least you know the devil that you're facing and the risks that you have been caused to face due to the securitisation process.

 

SPML may step up their repossessions.....not because you are a bad borrower, but because Eurosail is a bad borrower who needs to redeem its notes.

 

Supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Sced,

 

Don't worry too much...at least you have this as evidence - so if and when they start fabricating your alleged arrears by e.g. refusing to take your payments or overcharging then you can explain their motivation for doing this. Plus, you already know that they'll pull all sorts of stunts to allege arrears so you can take care not to let them get away with their stunts.

 

It is not because YOU are in default it is because THEY are (possibly) in default with their investors. If they pull any stunts on you to try to fabricate alleged arrears they will be in breach of contract with you too. Best to be aware of this possibility so that you can ensure you have proof of their breach of contract with you.

 

Knowledge is power and as long as you understand what and why it's happening you are in a much better position to defend yourself. Forewarned is forearmed.

 

At least you're aware of what might develop - again, we don't know the outcome of the hearing, but we do know the possibilities....and we're all here to help.

 

Supersleuth

[supersleuth]

Another interesting point about all this is: that if an Enforcement Notice is served by the Trustee - the contractual provisions would also trigger the provision that the Trustee would have to "perfect" its legal title which means they would have to register their legal title at the LR....

 

- ha ha - notwithstanding that the Trustee/SPV by law are REQUIRED to be registered at the LR as the legal owner and that they are in violation of the law anyway - it would be interesting to see if the Trustee/SPV will abide by their own contractual provisions and apply for its registration at the LR....OR, if they will attempt to enforce their security (i.e. your asset/home) without applying for registration at the LR....bet they choose to stay concealed. This is the point which would get really interesting and this is a major defence for you!!...especially as there is now a public COURT RECORD at the High Court on 11 March 2009 where the SPV and the investors have asserted their legal and contractual rights against their security interests - i.e. YOUR MORTGAGE. That is what an ASSET BACKED SECURITY (ABS) IS: their SECURITY is backed by the security of your mortgage and ultimately your asset - your home.

Edited March 31, 2009 by supersleuth

[Justhadenough]

The law society and the FOS are really smoke screen, regularity bodies, to imply, we the consumer, have a voice and a course of redress. Taking court action and using the very tools they use, is the only way you can win.

[supersleuth]

JonCris,

 

You're right and the best development that has just happened is that the judgement of the 11 March 2009 would likely be full of tools that the consumer could use.

 

This judgement would have been vigorously contested between the SPV/Trustee and the Investors where they will admit to being the legal owners and stood on their LEGAL rights - plus, they will not have assumed that someone like MIDGE61 would have uncovered it.

 

If anyone would like to get a copy of that judgement/and or the particulars of claim and/or the defence etc., (which are public records well, at least the judgement will certainly be a public record) that could be extremely revealing and great evidence. My guess is that the case would have been heard in the HIGH COURT CHANCERY DIVISION OR THE HIGH COURT COMMERCIAL DIVISION. First you can get the case number by viewing the DAILY CAUSE LISTS at the High Court and then go to the relevant division office to get the copies. Bank of New York Corporate Trustee Services Limited is the Trustee who would be named as one of the litigants in the action - Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL PLC may also be named as a litigant, but it seems the action is between the Trustee (i.e BNY) and the investors. who could be named something like "Class A3 Committee" or Eurosail-UK 2007-3BL Class A3 Committee" or something else to that effect or one of the Investors names could be used as the lead claimant for the investor committee e.g. Smith v Bank of New York Corporate Trustee Services Limited.

Edited March 31, 2009 by supersleuth

[JonCris]

Its been predicted that repos will increase 3 fold in the coming couple of years & I think we need an 'expert' witness like SS to help consumers in court. I know I would make a financial contribution to their reasonable costs

[bustthematrix]

"The credit card company transfers the beneficial interest (not the legal interest) in the receivables on a block of accounts to the trust."

Suetonius, interesting reading. Looks like you've arrived where SS has been pointing all along It's really all about WHAT the lenders have sold to the SPVs. Do all these various inferences, references and rulings aforehand really matter?

The key now is finding what those b*ggers have actually SOLD. If it can be proven that full legal title has been transferred, then that settles the argument really 'cos it will show that they are in voilation of the LRA2002 etc.

Me thinks, that the way these lenders are ducking and diving about

a) not wanting to confirm they actually have securitised a mortgage

b) who they sold it to

c) when they sold it and in what transaction

d) details of the sale/copy of the contract

they have almost certainly done a full transfer but are trying to hoodwink everyone, especially the judges and LR that it's only the beneficial interest etc etc. The truth will out and when it does, boyoboy...:grin:

[Suetonius]

Suetonius, interesting reading. Looks like you've arrived where SS has been pointing all along

 

 

Not really, the quote you have used is from Revenue & Customs and the beneficial interest, would only be the equitable interest, rather than the legal title

[bustthematrix]

You're right and the best development that has just happened is that the judgement of the 11 March 2009 would likely be full of tools that the consumer could use.

Hee hee hee;)

 

Not that I gloat in others' misfortune or nuffin but the thieves that scammed us (and of course each other) are starting to fight it out and once they do, we'll get some cracking bits of info to fight with!

 

Hee hee hee:)

 

The judges won't know who to back as both sides will be 'in their club'! So let the big boys fight it out and expose themselves...the same red hot super charged egg head mega fee legal brains who setup the securitisation [problem] docs are the same ones they'll employ to tear each other apart...

 

Funny old thing greed...it ALWAYS manages to backfire on you one way or another!

 

told you the truth will out....!!!

 

hee hee hee.................honestly can't stop laughing:lol:. You watch there's more to come in a big way - no wonder they can't stop calling it toxic assets!...there be muchus toxicity!!!

Edited March 31, 2009 by bustthematrix

[mercyblue]

CTSLink has the payment reports you would need to add an account to get them though and I cant get it to accept a phone number just says not a valid us phone number when I know it is a valid us phone number.

[supersleuth]

Bustthematrix,

 

Whey hey...as you say, now that they've started fighting each other the divide and rule strategy is in play...the matrix may soon be bust! Gotta keep watching this drama play out

 

Mercyblue - maybe the website want a US format phone number given that it is a US site - is it worth a try i.e XXX-XXX-XXXX

[midge61]

The notices that I posted were listed on the Irish Stock Exchange, so will keep an eye out on there for further info.

[supersleuth]

Suetonius,

 

As per Bustthematrix mentioned: you do appear to have come to the same conclusion re the equitable interest/legal interest issue.

 

You use the credit card/Inland Revenue examples but these are not entirely applicable in the Property law analysis. First the credit card analysis is based on SIMPLE CONTRACT whereas the mortgages are based on SPECIALTY CONTRACT in that they are contracts under a mortgage deed.

 

Plus to separate the legal and equitable titles there must be a separation of the legal and equitable title. Under property law/contract law, which require certain legal formalities to be observed in order to be valid at law (and in equity), what property law or contractual right empowered the lenders to separate the legal and equitable titles without the concurrence and expressed agreement of the borrower?

 

A Mortgagee is entitled under s.136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 to make an ABSOLUTE transfer its LEGAL TITLE , but there is nothing in that provision to entitle the lender to separate the equitable title from the legal title and transfer only the equitable title. In fact, that provision by implication only gives the statutory power to transfer an ABSOLUTE assignment and therefore does not provide a power to separate the equitable and legal titles.

 

So in the context of mortgage: what law or right are the lenders exercising when they claim to be entitled to separate the legal and equitable titles of a mortgage deed?...and if there's no legal entitlement to separate these titles, how can they be deemed to have lawfully separated these titles?

 

Just posing the questions as it may not have occured to many that the idea that they have separated these titles is a nonsense and in fact, if you read many of the prospectus in relation to mortgages it will confirm that the SPV is entitled to be registered as the legal owner, which means that they have acquired the legal title (but unlawfully chooses not to register).

 

Also you will see that the prospectuses confirm that the SPVs legal title is said to "operate in equity". This phrase does not mean that there is a separation of equitable and legal titles, it means that during the registration gap, equity will operate on the new owner's legal title. It is the SPVs legal title that is operating in equity pending its registration at the LR.

 

The words "operating in equity" have been misconstrued to become conflated with the concept of a separation of the equitable and legal interest. Again, it is the SPVs legal title that is operating in equity and under the equitable maxim that "equity deems as done, that which ought to be done" - what ought to be done here is that the SPV register its legal interest at the LR, but the SPV has unlawfully neglected to do that, which the law requires that it do!

 

Do you see the smoke and mirrors strategy at play? - remove the smoke and you'll see just what confusions these lawyers are playing.

 

I do not comment on the lawfulness of the alleged separation of legal and equitable titles in the context of credit cards, but in the context of REAL PROPERTY LAW, it is not open to the lenders to allege that there has been a separation of titles when there is no legal or contractual right to allow the separation. The upshot is: the legal title has been transferred - it is up to the lenders to prove a LAWFUL separation of the legal and equitable titles if they want to maintain their ruse. It is a ruse.

Edited April 1, 2009 by supersleuth

[Suetonius]

A Mortgagee is entitled under s.136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 to make an ABSOLUTE transfer its LEGAL TITLE , but there is nothing in that provision to entitle the lender to separate the equitable title from the legal title and transfer only the equitable title. In fact, that provision by implication only gives the statutory power to transfer an ABSOLUTE assignment and therefore does not provide a power to separate the equitable and legal titles.

 

It is precisely because of the s.136 of the Law of Property Act that I disagree with you.

 

For the assignment to be ABSOLUTE, one very important step must be taken.

 

136 Legal assignments of things in action

(1)Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

 

 

"Any absolute assignment is effectual in law to pass transfer from the date of such notice"

 

Has such a notice been given and if so, when is it dated ?

 

If there has not been such a notice, s.136 the Law of Property Act clearly confirms that the assignment cannot be ABSOLUTE. Therefore, if any assignment has taken place it can only be equitable.

 

However, s.136 may be a mute point.

 

Paragon v Pender (not an application for an appeal)

 

 

1. As to Mr Page's reliance on section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, that too is in my judgment misplaced. He fails to distinguish between the right to sue at law for the mortgage debt and the proprietary interest created as security for its repayment. Section 136 applies only to the former.
    
   
2. Accordingly in respectful agreement with the judge I reject Mr Page's submissions on the title to sue issue.
   

[supersleuth]

Hi Suetonius,

 

Good point but, the question did not relate to a title to sue point - the question was:

 

if the lender purports to have separated the legal and equitable titles, what law permits such separation? Clearly s.136 does not empower a separation of titles. So again, do you know of any powers under real property law where the lender can lawfully separate the legal and equitable titles?

[Suetonius]

if the lender purports to have separated the legal and equitable titles, what law permits such separation? Clearly s.136 does not empower a separation of titles. So again, do you know of any powers under real property law where the lender can lawfully separate the legal and equitable titles?

 

So for the delay in responding, I am at work.

 

The Law of Trusts

 

 

The law of trusts is based upon the concept of English law that property rights can be split into:

• the legal ownership, and
  
• the beneficial interest