Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred

[Suetonius]

Smoke and mirrors are everywhere and can be used by everyone including us.

 

However, through the smoke and mirrors, two points still remain

 

1) The implications of the judgements made in the 2005 Pender Case

2) The requirement for a notice to be sent to the debtor / borrower (as per s.136 of the LOP)

 

How do you intend to overcome these two obstacles ??

 

 

If you can answer the above, I promise to go away and never darken your door again

[supersleuth]

Suetonius,

 

Please do stay and darken my door if that's how you see it, but also be assured that I don't consider you as having darkened my door.

 

Nonetheless, you aver to certain legal points which you see as "obstacles", however we differ on those point too as I don't see them as obstacles or alternatively, at least I don't see them as insurmountable obstacles.

 

Nonetheless, as answering that question may cause you to flee from us, at the moment I'd prefer to hold you in suspense and decline to answer your question on those points...in time...I may answer...but at the moment...I withdraw gracefully on that question. Such withdrawal not to be consider that I concede to your points, only that I choose not to answer at this point in time.

 

However in true politician/lawyer style you have avoided answering the question posed in relation to post no. 323 and 327 by posing a different question

 

You have still not answered the question as to why you believe that the SPML prospectus should be interpreted as an equitable assignment, rather than the legal assignment that it is...do you concede that on the facts, that Prospectus is evidence of a legal assignment? You were asked to give the benefit of your analysis on that Prospectus as to why there was (as you allege) an equitable assignment - can us the benefit of your analysis?

[Suetonius]

You have still not answered the question as to why you believe that the SPML prospectus should be interpreted as an equitable assignment, rather than the legal assignment that it is...do you concede that on the facts, that Prospectus is evidence of a legal assignment? You were asked to give the benefit of your analysis on that Prospectus as to why there was (as you allege) an equitable assignment - can us the benefit of your analysis?

 

Sorry, I thought I had answer this question.

 

I consider that the SPML prospectus should be interpreted as an equitable assignment because it confirms that a notice has not been provided to the borrower.

 

Would you agree or disagree that there are three requirements that an assignment must comply with to make that assignment legal/absolute rather than equitable assignment.

 

Those three factors being:

• The assignment must be in writing and signed by the assignor
  
• It must be absolute, not just part of the debt or contractual benefit
  
• Written notice must be given to the other party.
  

Isn't it true that If the assignment satisfies these requirements the assignee can sue the other party in its own name. Otherwise, the assignment is merely equitable.

 

1) A notice has not been sent to the borrower

 

2) It would appear that it is the contractual benefit (the monthly repayments) that have been assigned.

 

Therefore, the assignment does not meet the three requirements for it to be legal / absolute. Thus it can only be equitable

 

Or would you disgree with the above interpretation ?

[Suetonius]

Nonetheless, you aver to certain legal points which you see as "obstacles", however we differ on those point too as I don't see them as obstacles or alternatively, at least I don't see them as insurmountable obstacles.

 

Nonetheless, as answering that question may cause you to flee from us, at the moment I'd prefer to hold you in suspense and decline to answer your question on those points...in time...I may answer...but at the moment...I withdraw gracefully on that question. Such withdrawal not to be consider that I concede to your points, only that I choose not to answer at this point in time.

 

I promise not to flee, please feel free to answer as I am very curious how you intend to overcome those insurmountable obstacles. I look forward to reading your answers.

 

I will go and take a look at posts 323 and 327..

[Suetonius]

Interesting sparring with you Suetonius - look forward to your analysis on the no. 323 and 327 posts

 

However in true politician/lawyer style you have avoided answering the question posed in relation to post no. 323 and 327 by posing a different question

 

Ok in relation to post 327

 

And you can go forth and multiple too lol;)

 

 

*The above is said in jest because I know SC

 

I stand by this post. Smarterchick (SC) can still go forth and multiple.

 

With regard to post 323..

No worries Suetonius, thanks for taking time to reply.

 

The law of Trusts may well be based upon a concept that property rights can be split - so where is the trust that has allegedly been created between the seller/lender and the SPV??? such that there was a separation of the legal and equitable interests.

 

The seller/lender is pretending to be a trustee if it asserts that it is holding the legal title on behalf of beneficial interest because we know that the seller/lender is NOT THE MORTGAGE TRUSTEE.

 

If you want to maintain that the seller/lender is the bona fide legal owner that holds the property on trust for the benefit of the investors - you're missing a big chunk of the securitisation structure.

 

To create a trust there must be the three C's. Certainty of intention to create a trust, Certainty of subject matter, and Certainty of object that the trust will fulfil - and the creation of a trust must be by a DEED of Trust.

 

If the seller/lender wants to pretend it is a trustee - then it should evidence that it has a Trust Deed with the SPV where the seller/lender is the MORTGAGE TRUSTEE and the SPV is the beneficiary if it wants to maintain that it merely sold the equitable interest to the SPV. It cannot do that because that is not a securitisation and there is no such trust between the seller/lender and the SPV that created the separation of the legal and equitable interests.

 

But we KNOW that the SPV acquired the legal title from the seller/lender because we KNOW that the SPV did create a trust from its ownership of the legal title. That is the securitisation.

 

The SPV has taken its legal title and has created a trust (compliant with the three C's). That is where the separation of legal and equitable title has occured. The separation of legal title did not occur until AFTER the lender sold the LEGAL TITLE to the SPV. Therefore, the SPV is the legal owner that should be registered as the legal owner but it has unlawfully failed to register as the legal owner.

 

In fact, to be entirely complete, when the SPV created a trust with the mortgage trustee and settled its legal title into the trust, the MORTGAGE TRUSTEE should have been registered as the legal owner who held the title on behalf of the beneficiaries i.e. the SPVs investors.

 

Consequently, the seller/lender is an imposter and a liar. The seller/lender did sell the LEGAL TITLE. The seller/lender is not a trustee.

 

There is no trust deed between the seller/lender and the SPV. Therefore there is no trust between them and consequently, there was no separation of the legal and equitable titles. The relationship between the seller/lender and the SPV is strictly a contractual relationship of buyer and seller. The SPV is the legal owner - the SPV should be registered.

 

So, seeing as it is the SPV that separated the legal and equitable interests when it created the trust - tell me, on what basis is the seller/lender entitled to falsely misrepresent itself as a trustee - and if the imposter lender is holding itself out as a trustee why does it not state that it is claiming in its capacity as a trustee (as the law requires it declare) and misrepresents itself to the court to claim possession in its OWN NAME?

 

You see Sontonius, there is a fraud being purportrated on the court here. Smoke and mirrors - but fraud nonetheless. Would value your feed back on these points when you have time.

 

This is the only question that I have been able to ascertain from your post

 

"So, seeing as it is the SPV that separated the legal and equitable interests when it created the trust - tell me, on what basis is the seller/lender entitled to falsely misrepresent itself as a trustee - and if the imposter lender is holding itself out as a trustee why does it not state that it is claiming in its capacity as a trustee (as the law requires it declare) and misrepresents itself to the court to claim possession in its OWN NAME?"

 

However, this question has already been answered by

 

Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Jonathan Parker and Lord Justice Carnwath, in the judgement made in the Pender case

 

"In my judgment Mr and Mrs Pender's case on this issue is misconceived. It is common ground that Paragon, as registered proprietor of the Legal Charge, retains legal ownership of it. One incident of its legal ownership – and an essential one at that – is the right to possession of the mortgaged property.

 

I can see no basis upon which it can be contended that an uncompleted agreement to transfer the Legal Charge to the SPV (that is to say an agreement under which, pending completion, the SPV has no more than an equitable interest in the mortgage) can operate in law to divest Paragon of an essential incident of its legal ownership.

 

In my judgment as a matter of principle the right to possession conferred by the Legal Charge remains exercisable by Paragon as the legal owner of the Legal Charge (i.e. as the registered proprietor of it), notwithstanding that Paragon may have transferred the beneficial ownership of the Legal Charge to the SPV. "

 

However, if you are refering to my post in relation to the law of trusts, I have already responded to this specific point. See post 320

[kegi]

SS try to follow this if possible I can only put this down as I see it

I offer to buy my neighbours house for £100,000 he agrees and signs a transfer of title to the property over to me he is removed from the LR as owner I am put on as the new owner. Now because I haven’t the ready cash I arranged a mortgage with Haliwax to borrow £100,000 over 25yrs at x interest =x amount per month we sign up for that and to cover their a..se I also agree to allow them to put a charge on the house in case I default on those repayments and would give them the right to repo said house which is placed on top of my title to the house. [i.e. I still own the house] and I am also of the view that these two things mortgage and charge are separate but agree with you [you will not get one without the other]

Now am I right in thinking that this piece of paper i.e. the charge contract is not worth a light as long as I pay what I owe them and I can even sell the house on as long as I honour that debt to them from the proceeds. So if you are saying [correct me if I am wrong] that they are buying this charge they can only be buying the right to collect the payments unless again I default and they can repo me ,or is this higher up the food chain as it were from where we started. To me it can’t be the title to my house can it? EVEN PASSED ON 3 OR 4 TIMES UNDERNEATH IT ALL I AM STILL THERE ON THE LR am I not .. As owner albeit with charges added. For good behaviour

It’s doing me head in now

Kegi peace

I have left a space between the above and another piece of seaweed floating around in my head

 

Chaps I am at odds with myself as to what is the situation when someone takes me to court for a repo order and the judge goes their way and grants it [leave aside the fact they don’t from what I gather show any proof of legal right too] .From what I read I still own the house till its sold and I am responsible for mortgage payments and insurance so is my contract still in force and if so I should have a say in how much its sold for ,or has the judge handed over my house to the repo man and my contract is null and void ..For someone else to sell my house to another he would have to own it yes , and must therefore be registered as the owner.And as the new buyer I would need to see that proof yes. And who’s name would it be on that sale document Haliwax or SPML ETC…ie if it went up for auction would it have to say who owned it .This is not me personally just silly thoughts going round and round in my head

Kegi

[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.

 

100. As to Mr Page's reliance (in the alternative) on section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, Mr Malek submits that given that there was no legal assignment of the Legal Charge itself (see section 33(2) of the Land Registration Act 1925) there can have been no legal assignment of the right to recover possession. He further submits that section 136 is concerned with the assignment of debts, and that is not relevant to the transfer of securities, and to the exercise of rights thereunder.

 

116. 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.

[JonCris]

To add my 2p worth anyone but anyone who claims that even the best of lawyers don't make monumental mistakes should look at the bank penalty charges debacle which has cost the banks millions & may run to billions

[Suetonius]

To add my 2p worth anyone but anyone who claims that even the best of lawyers don't make monumental mistakes should look at the bank penalty charges debacle which has cost the banks millions & may run to billions

 

Totally agree

 

100%

 

After all, they are only human

 

On a seperate note JonCris, did you have a hangover ?

[Suetonius]

Now that I have answered your questions Superslueth, would you care to return the courtesy ? (only seems fair)

 

Question One

Here is a question, under what legal process was this sale made ?

 

If it was assignment, s.136 confirms that it cannot be legal/absolute

If it was novation, where is the new contract ?

 

Question Two

We know that is securitisation in the USA, but do we know that is also securitisation in the UK ?

 

A previously quoted extract from the Capital One tribunial:

 

"Two of the exceptions are the consequence of US requirements. The first, which the Appellant contends is reflected in substance and in form in the structure which has been achieved, is that the assignment must be a true sale; it may not be an assignment by way of security if US accounting standards are to be respected. No such requirement is imposed by UK accounting standards, nor by the FSA"

 

As I understand it, in the US, it is a requirement that the assignment is by way of a true sale (legal/absolute assigment). However, no such requirement exists in the UK.

 

Question Three

Smoke and mirrors are everywhere and can be used by everyone including us.

 

However, through the smoke and mirrors, two points still remain

 

1) The implications of the judgements made in the 2005 Pender Case

2) The requirement for a notice to be sent to the debtor / borrower (as per s.136 of the LOP)

 

How do you intend to overcome these two obstacles ??

 

look forward to your answers to the above questions

Edited April 2, 2009 by Suetonius

[bustthematrix]

Suetonius, can't see where you've answered SS's point regarding the Law of Trusts and the splitting of beneficial vs equitable interest? When does this actually take place i.e. when is the 'trust' created and the trusteeship enacted between the lender and SPV?

[kegi]

RBS / North Yorkshire Mortgages - Securitisation & Repo |

 

read this you lot kegi peace

[Trudy B]

Thank you Kegi, Midge61 and everyone :grin: I am a newbie so not fab at getting round site yet and understading everything

 

Have the letters and the land land reg forms they filed ..... anything else you want, anything i can help with?

[Suetonius]

Suetonius, can't see where you've answered SS's point regarding the Law of Trusts and the splitting of beneficial vs equitable interest? When does this actually take place i.e. when is the 'trust' created and the trusteeship enacted between the lender and SPV?

 

Hello bustthematrix, I raised the issue of the law of trusts in relation to SS's specific question:

 

So again, do you know of any powers under real property law where the lender can lawfully separate the legal and equitable titles?

 

My answer with regard to this specific question was the Law of Trusts. It may help if I explain further.

 

In English law distinction is drawn between ownership at law and that which subsists in equity. These types of ownership as they operate in English law are very different, but that nevertheless they are capable of simultaneous existence, and will often arise simultaneously in respect of property.

 

The starting point for considering the simultaneous existence of two types of ownership is of course property. And, it is very clear and apparent in the course of everyday encounters that most personal property (i.e., goods, or property which is not land) is owned by one person absolutely. In this typical scenario of ownership, ownership of the item is not split up in any way, and the property concerned is the property of its ‘owner’. The position is different in situations where a person (or persons) holds property on trust for another (or others).

 

Unlike in the case of absolute ownership, in the simplest variety of trust, there will be two people simultaneously owning the property in question. However, the relationship each person will have to the property will be quite different from that of the other. In this situation, where property is held on trust, there is a legal owner, who is called a trustee. He has essentially a management role, and is subject to duties in respect of the property and the administration of the trust. There is also an equitable owner, who is called a cestui que trust, or beneficiary. It is the beneficiary who is entitled to enjoy the property, and whose position is therefore closest to being what a layman might consider to be an owner.

 

The starting point for understanding how the trust, and the distinct forms of ownership which characterise it, come into being is the decision in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] AC 669, and particularly the now very famous passage from the judgment of Lord Browne-Wilkinson. That judgment insisted, probably as part of the ratio of the case, that the owner of any property is vested with legal title alone. It is only when separation of title is sought that distinct equitable ownership will arise. Indeed, it is clear in light of Westdeutsche that distinct equitable title is not recognised as being vested with separate existence unless and until title is separated into legal and equitable estates:

 

 

"A person solely entitled to the full beneficial ownership of money or property, both at law and in equity, does not enjoy an equitable interest in that property. The legal title carries with it all rights. Unless and until there is a separation of the legal and equitable estates, there is no separate equitable title."

 

 

It is so that it is the appearance of distinct equitable title upon separation of ownership which is of essence to, and actually forms the basis of the law of trusts. The reasoning proposes is that a trust actually arises by virtue of, and precisely because the conscience of the legal owner is affected, and this requires him to hold property as owner at law on behalf of the equitable owner.

 

 

Legal Ownership is a management function. So far from being desirable, a trustee undertakes onerous duties, and is often paid for undertaking trusteeship (e.g., banks, solicitors—for conditions attaching to payment). The equitable owner, or beneficiary, on the other hand, is entitled to enjoy the property. Of course, where no trust is imposed, legal ownership is itself desirable (most owners of goods would be surprised if it were otherwise). Equitable ownership shares with its legal counterpart one of the most important features of any property right, that it can be disposed of. Property is a transferable commodity.

 

The position of legal rights arising from title at law is that they are enforceable against anyone, and they are said to ‘bind the world’. Equitable rights on the other hand do not do so, and they might in this respect be perceived as lesser rights on account of the impact they can have on third parties. Illustration of this position and the issues it raises can be made through the very simple example provided by a trustee who tries to sell property to which he has ostensible ownership: he has legal title, and he is attempting to dispose of the property on the basis that ownership is unencumbered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Suetonius]

RBS / North Yorkshire Mortgages - Securitisation & Repo |

 

read this you lot kegi peace

 

That scenario is a little different as it would appear that a number of notices have been sent and received with regard to the assignment (as required by s.136 of the law of property act 1925). Therefore, it would appear in that instance legal title has been transfered.

 

 

(However, that is subject to further information and confirmation)

Edited April 2, 2009 by Suetonius

[Suetonius]

Where were we ? oh yes

 

Now that I have answered your questions Superslueth, would you care to return the courtesy ? (only seems fair)

 

Question One

Question One

Here is a question, under what legal process was this sale made ?

 

If it was assignment, s.136 confirms that it cannot be legal/absolute

If it was novation, where is the new contract ?

 

Question Two

We know that is securitisation in the USA, but do we know that is also securitisation in the UK ?

 

A previously quoted extract from the Capital One tribunial:

 

"Two of the exceptions are the consequence of US requirements. The first, which the Appellant contends is reflected in substance and in form in the structure which has been achieved, is that the assignment must be a true sale; it may not be an assignment by way of security if US accounting standards are to be respected. No such requirement is imposed by UK accounting standards, nor by the FSA"

 

As I understand it, in the US, it is a requirement that the assignment is by way of a true sale (legal/absolute assigment). However, no such requirement exists in the UK.

 

Question Three

Smoke and mirrors are everywhere and can be used by everyone including us.

 

However, through the smoke and mirrors, two points still remain

 

1) The implications of the judgements made in the 2005 Pender Case

2) The requirement for a notice to be sent to the debtor / borrower (as per s.136 of the LOP)

 

How do you intend to overcome these two obstacles ??

 

look forward to your answers to the above questions

[supersleuth]

Hi Suetonius,

 

Gotta fly (literally), will be back after Easter and will resume then...

 

Happy Easter ya'll

[Suetonius]

Hi Suetonius,

 

Gotta fly (literally), will be back after Easter and will resume then...

 

Happy Easter ya'll

 

 

Peace be the journey SS.

[bustthematrix]

My answer with regard to this specific question was the Law of Trusts. It may help if I explain further.

....

Hi Suetonius, thanks for the explanation - certainly makes things clearer - but I don't think it's answered my question.

 

What I was asking, in relation to the securitisation issues being debated on this thread was

a) When did the lender/SPV create a trust?

b) Where does it exist smf what is it's form e.g. private or public entity?

c) What are it's functions and

d) Most importantly, where is the evidence that legal and equitable title were distinctly seperated when it was created?

e) oh and what would be the relationship of the borrower to that 'trust'?

:-?

[bustthematrix]

SS, have a great trip (if that applies) - we'll miss you on this thread but let's see what can be dug up in your absence!!!

[Suetonius]

Hi Suetonius, thanks for the explanation - certainly makes things clearer - but I don't think it's answered my question.

 

What I was asking, in relation to the securitisation issues being debated on this thread was

a) When did the lender/SPV create a trust?

b) Where does it exist smf what is it's form e.g. private or public entity?

c) What are it's functions and

d) Most importantly, where is the evidence that legal and equitable title were distinctly seperated when it was created?

e) oh and what would be the relationship of the borrower to that 'trust'?

:-?

 

Hello Bustthematrix, maybe a little history may help to clear the confusion.

 

The English Trust was defined by an authority called Underhill as follows:

 

"A trust is an equitable obligation, binding a person (who is called a trustee) to deal with property over which he has control (which is called the trust property) for the benefit of persons (who are called beneficiaries) of whom he himself may be one and any of whom may enforce the obligation."

 

The essence of a trust is that the concept of ownership is divided: the trustee is given the legal title to the property which gives them the duty to manage and control the property for the benefit of the beneficiaries who are exclusively entitled to the benefit of the property.

 

In response to your direct questions, I will quote from above:

 

a) When did the lender/SPV create a trust?

 

"It is only when separation of title is sought that distinct equitable ownership will arise. Indeed, it is clear in light of Westdeutsche that distinct equitable title is not recognised as being vested with separate existence unless and until title is separated into legal and equitable estates

 

The reasoning proposes is that a trust actually arises by virtue of, and precisely because the conscience of the legal owner is affected, and this requires him to hold property as owner at law on behalf of the equitable owner"

 

b) Where does it exist smf what is it's form e.g. private or public entity?

 

I think I must be particually dense today, as I do not understand your question. Could you please clarify.

 

c) What are it's functions

 

"where property is held on trust, there is a legal owner, who is called a trustee. He has essentially a management role, and is subject to duties in respect of the property and the administration of the trust. There is also an equitable owner, who is called a cestui que trust, or beneficiary. It is the beneficiary who is entitled to enjoy the property, and whose position is therefore closest to being what a layman might consider to be an owner."

 

 

d) Most importantly, where is the evidence that legal and equitable title were distinctly seperated when it was created?

 

 

Law of Property Act 1925

 

 

53 Instruments required to be in writing

(1)Subject to the provision hereinafter contained with respect to the creation of interests in land by parol—

 

(a)no interest in land can be created or disposed of except by writing signed by the person creating or conveying the same, or by his agent thereunto lawfully authorised in writing, or by will, or by operation of law;

 

(b)a declaration of trust respecting any land or any interest therein must be manifested and proved by some writing signed by some person who is able to declare such trust or by his will;

 

I would presume that the actual sales agreement would be sufficient (dependent upon form and content)

 

e) oh and what would be the relationship of the borrower to that 'trust'?

 

In most instances, the borrower will be totally unaware that anything has happened. As for as the borrower is concerned, it is business as usual

 

In addition to the above, I can highly recommend both wiki and google

 

 

SS did you have a safe flight ? or haven't you left yet ?

Edited April 3, 2009 by Suetonius

[Smarterchick]

Have a good Easter Supersleuth, I'm sure you'll appreciate the rest given the great work you've been doing on here (and long hours) and in preparation for the coming weeks.

 

Oh and sorry Seutonius, I was typing up when you posted - great work!

 

I'd just like to add something here which concerns me a little just now with people reading over these securitisation threads. This is no reflection upon any poster whatsoever - it is just a warning I think people should take on board:

 

The debate is getting quite deep, very informative, but - very dangerous. It is important to take on board the implications of reading too much into what is being said just yet and I'd just like to add this warning to anyone reading these threads.

 

All secured financial products carry a rider:

 

" Your property is at risk if you do not keep up payments on your mortgage or loan"...and so too must these threads

 

Be very aware, that what you are reading on these securitisation threads IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, but merely OPINIONS from people who have some knowledge of the practices of securitisation and there are others who are TESTING THESE THEORIES being discussed. Bank charges and Unenforceable Agreements have all gone through this process, but there have been many casualties along the way of people reading from these forums claiming or presenting this to a judge without taking proper legal advice first and they have paid, and continue to pay, an extremely heavy price for not doing so. This action could cost you your home and the last thing anyone wants on here is for anyone to lose their home as a result of not being fully prepared or legally represented. It is far too early to even begin to think there is any mileage in these arguments and Carmel Butlers memorandum to the Treasury is precisely that - a Memorandum from a 'Consumer and Taxpayer' - it says so on the report.

 

It was not, as far as I am aware and I could be wrong, commissioned by the Treasury - it is a brilliant insight, very informative, explosive if confirmed peice of researched evidence from a distinquished and experienced individual with an obviously thorough knowledge of the industry - but it is Not Legal Advice, not given or purported to be as legal advice and there are many legal hurdles, case laws and counter arguments being put forward to test the theories being proposed which is an extremely healthy exercise to be going through prior to any kind of action plan being put forward for the greater public use, so do tread carefully. All contributors are doing what this forum is so good at -acheiving through its collective might - analysing peoples ideas, peoples knowledge, challenging the laws, case laws, potentials and pitfalls and we are only but scratching the surface yet.

 

SO PLEASE.... everyone, by all means and I encourage you to join the debate, carry on this wonderful research, keep on unearthing as much as you can, but PLEASE do not put your homes at risk by thinking this is some kind of "get-out of paying your mortgage or loan scheme" on the basis of what you are reading. If you wish to take up any part of these arguments get a thorough and proper legal opinion specific to YOU. As with the Credit Agreements scenario, everyone's mortgage and loan is different and the circumstances behind these securitisations are as we have seen very, very complex and thank goodness for Supersleuth and the likes of Suetonius and others who barter thoughts so professionally without taking things personally - these issues on CAG are not personal - they are for the benefit of the public good. - If we all agreed with one another debate would die.

 

Lets keep digging, debating and uncovering, but keep your eyes strictly on your own family's personal financial safety. Good searching, good luck and thank you-all of you. We have done it with Bank Charges - this is a new challenge - but it could amount to nothing - always remember that and protect that which is most precious first. If not - Get proper legal advice.

 

Smarterchick - you know it makes sense.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Smarterchick

[IS IT ME?]

SS and SK,

well what you say is true in so ways but no one has answered the basic question and that is:

When the bond holders pay there money to the trusts for our mortgages what do they get in exchange? looking at your posts you are saying that the bond holders only have equitable rights which after paying in some cases £600million for these bonds.

I think that it is here the true state of this securitisation matters. AS THEY must have overall rights and as SS states the companies are just acting under a cloud and this is why they NEVER inform the browers of any trusts being set up or there mortgages being MORTGAGED as that is what really happens and I would like an answer to this question.

I know of one company from the US who came here set up with a £700,000 black hole in its accounts and then by next year had a mortgage book of £135 million secritisated. HOW?????

[Suetonius]

SS and SK,

well what you say is true in so ways but no one has answered the basic question and that is:

When the bond holders pay there money to the trusts for our mortgages what do they get in exchange? looking at your posts you are saying that the bond holders only have equitable rights which after paying in some cases £600million for these bonds.

I think that it is here the true state of this securitisation matters. AS THEY must have overall rights and as SS states the companies are just acting under a cloud and this is why they NEVER inform the browers of any trusts being set up or there mortgages being MORTGAGED as that is what really happens and I would like an answer to this question.

I know of one company from the US who came here set up with a £700,000 black hole in its accounts and then by next year had a mortgage book of £135 million secritisated. HOW?????

 

Why must they ? They don't need the legal title

[IS IT ME?]

So if your right and the bond holders have nothing for there money, no title, no rights,what do they have?

ITS THE SALE DOCUMENT WHICH WOULD CLEARLY SHOW WHAT HAS HAPPENED but will the companies show you that documents NO WAY becuase it will show that they the bond holders have FULL title and every thing that comes with it.