Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred

[Suetonius]

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.

 

As I have previously asked SS, under what legal process has the legal title been transfered ?

[kegi]

smarterchick re post 392 I agree with the all the good comments you make yet i am of the view no one on this forum or site are prepared to take this lot on re this issue unless they have a deep pocket and a top wack lawyer .Ask yourself the ?who in this country be it banks ,lawyers,cc judges ,appeal judges, LR,MPs police are even interested in this issue none that I know off ...

Your post should have ended with , Because I'm worth it

I now

Pronounce you are to be called superchick:cool:

[Smarterchick]

smarterchick re post 392 I agree with the all the good comments you make yet i am of the view no one on this forum or site are prepared to take this lot on re this issue unless they have a deep pocket and a top wack lawyer .Ask yourself the ?who in this country be it banks ,lawyers,cc judges ,appeal judges, LR,MPs police are even interested in this issue none that I know off ...

Your post should have ended with , Because I'm worth it

I now

Pronounce you are to be called superchick:cool:

 

 

Flattery will get you everywhere ... thank you, but no one was interested in Bank charges once upon a time, we were all the so called 'down and outs' and 'won't pays' so no-one took any notice. Look what happened to that.

 

I have seen many counter arguments on other sites to this securitisation issue, this Mark Wardsworth fellow, Bigfatbigot and a few others and Carmel Butler seems totally aware of their criticisms, there's one who even states he'd worked in the same practice as her, so she knows what's she's doing, knows the criticisms and seems determined to make her stand against what she sees as an injustice within the banking world. Brave lady, don't write it off quite yet, if she's challenging this I think she is very brave indeed.

 

Go ask Mark Gander (Bankfodder) and Dave who started this CAG forum what they were told initially about claiming bank charges and see what they have to say - I bet they are watching these threads like hawks, what CB says, and apparently supported by Supersleuth is a massive counter to bank practices, but just because it says in the terms and conditions what happens does not mean it's legal or lawful - wind back to bank charges.

 

This forum is here to explore and empower, so long as people don't start going gung-ho and going it alone into a black hole of litigation before knowing EXACTLY what's at stake - (your home for one - massive legal bills for two) then it is sensible to watch, learn, research, ask, explore, test before taking it on and of course, none of those people you mention want to know because think of what is at stake - it all seems too incredible and bigfatbigot seems to believe it to be so...but there were plenty of BFB's in the banking charges forums too...so lets give this a chance to be proved wrong..keep up the debate, respect others rights to their opinions even if you beg to differ challenge like seutonius irritatingly does quite regularly and peice by peice the truth will unfold.

 

Superchick I could get carried away with that!

Edited April 4, 2009 by Smarterchick

[foolishgirl]

 

Superchick I could get carried away with that!

 

You could be carried away SC!!

 

Seriously, you're absolutely right. If we never challenge, we never move forward, not just in consumer issues like this but in general.

 

BTW, did you know the world's not flat?!

[Suetonius]

BTW, did you know the world's not flat?!

 

 

Please stop spreading these falsehoods !!

 

Next you will be saying something really silly like Father Christmas and more importantly at the moment, the Easter Bunny don't exist...

[foolishgirl]

the Easter Bunny don't exist...

 

Oh no, I KNOW the Easter Bunny exists - who else would bring my Easter eggs?

[midge61]

Hi

 

Sorry if I am having a senior moment but I don't quite understand Seutonias on the following:

 

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.

 

If the trustee has the legal title then surely they own the mortgage so our mortgages have been sold to them in a true sale. In my prospectus on page 9 it shows that SHARE TRUSTEE Capita Trust Nominees No. 1

Limited have 100% ownership and PARENT Southern Pacific Securities

05-3 Parent Limited have 100% beneficial ownership.

 

Sorry but can you explain this in laymens terms as I am getting very confused.

 

thanks

[Suetonius]

Hi

 

Sorry if I am having a senior moment but I don't quite understand Seutonias on the following:

 

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.

 

If the trustee has the legal title then surely they own the mortgage so our mortgages have been sold to them in a true sale. In my prospectus on page 9 it shows that SHARE TRUSTEE Capita Trust Nominees No. 1 Limited have 100% ownership and PARENT Southern Pacific Securities 05-3 Parent Limited have 100% beneficial ownership.

 

Sorry but can you explain this in laymens terms as I am getting very confused.

 

thanks

 

My previous post was not specific to an individual securtisiation. It was an attempt to explain why I had previously refered to the law of trusts and the different between legal and equity ownership. I am sorry, it was an attempt to clear the confusion, not to add to it.

 

Can you post a link to your prospectus, as it is easier to respond after reading the document as a whole rather than selected quotes.

 

Many Thanks

 

Sue

Edited April 4, 2009 by Suetonius

[midge61]

Hi

 

It's on post 363.

[Suetonius]

Thanks, I will go and look now

[Suetonius]

I can understand why you are confused and that is why it is always best to look at the document in its entirety, rather than just at certain extracts.

 

If you continue onto page ten, it makes the process a little clearer.

 

"The Issuer has been established to acquire a portfolio of residential mortgage loans (individually the "Loans", collectively and, together with the Collateral Security (as defined in Condition 2(f)) relating thereto, the "Mortgage Pool") originated by Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited ("SPML")"

 

"The Issuer has been established to acquire a portfolio of residential mortgage loans"

 

If this extract was to be read by itself, I would consider that this would imply that the legal title would be sold to the Issuer.

 

However,

 

Page 68 of your prospectus states:

 

"The Issuer will grant a first fixed equitable charge in favour of the Trustee over its interest in the Loans and the Collateral Security"

"The sale of the Loans and their related Collateral Security to the Issuer will take effect in equity only"

The only interest the issuer has in your mortgage is in equity. This equity interest is secured by a fixed equitable charge in favour of the trustee.

 

which leads onto:

 

 

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.

 

 

Therefore, the ownership of your mortgage has only been transferred in equity and not in law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2009 by Suetonius

[midge61]

Yes but the Issuer is not the trustee and that still does not explain your earlier quote :

 

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.

 

Does the trustee own the mortgage or not?

 

Sorry but to me if you own something then you have bought it to do so or am I really missing something.

 

 

[Suetonius]

Yes but the Issuer is not the trustee and that still does not explain your earlier quote :

 

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.

 

Does the trustee own the mortgage or not?

 

Sorry but to me if you own something then you have bought it to do so or am I really missing something.

 

 

 

As I have previously said, my previous explaination in relation to trust's was posted to explain why I had previously mentioned the law of trusts. So please do not base any conclusions in relation upon the securitisation of your mortgage upon it.

 

My previous post was not specific to an individual securtisiation. It was an attempt to explain why I had previously refered to the law of trusts and the different between legal and equity ownership. I am sorry, it was an attempt to clear the confusion, not to add to it.

 

After reading your prospectus, it would appear that your mortgage effectively has two owners.

 

Legal Title: SPML (mortgage provider / lender)

Equitable Title: Southern Pacific Securities 05-3 plc

 

The equitable title, is secured by a fixed equitable charge in favour of the Capita Trust Company Limited (the trustee)

 

 

However, the above is based upon my understanding

 

[Suetonius]

The issued share capital of the Issuer comprises 50,000 ordinary shares of £1.00, of which 49,999 are held by the Parent and one is held by the Share Trustee, as nominee for the Parent under the terms of the Share Trust. The entire issued share capital of the Parent is held by the Share Trustee under the terms of the Charitable Share Trust. The Issuer has no subsidiaries. The Issuer has been established as a special purpose vehicle or entity for the purpose of issuing asset backed securities

[Suetonius]

This whole debate boils down to a few simple legal principles.

 

What legal process was used to transfer title ?

 

If it is as per s.136 of the Law of Property Act, it does not matter what the presale documents, prospectus or even the sales agreement say.

 

Without a notice being sent to the borrower, the assignment can only ever be equitable

[Suetonius]

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.

 

 

I could not agree with this more. Please do not base any legal decisions upon anything that I post or for that matter anything that anyone else post's in a forum.

Even if it appears that an individual is knowledgeable, that may not be the case. They may think the know more than they do. (including moi;))

[IS IT ME?]

But You Have Not Answered The Question What Do The Bond Holders Get For There Millions???? If The Company Goes Belle Up Then But Your Quotes They Loss All There Money, I Don't Think So.

Do You Work For One By The Way?

No Company Is Going To Show Any One The Sale Agreement And Why Is This, Don't Ask Because Ive Tried To See This And Asked A Court To Force The Company To Show This But They Screamed Like A Pig Not To Show It Giving Every Reason Not To Again Why?

Have You Paid A Erc Of £20k No Then Ask Some One Who Has Where This Moneys Gone!

[JonCris]

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.

 

Excellent advice Smarterchick:).................however if anyone is already being seriously threatened with repossession then I suggest they have nothing to lose & everything to gain by introducing these arguments as part of their fightback;-)

[IS IT ME?]

JonCirs,

well no one has answered the post above and that is what we did in court and the judge went quite, because he knew what Ive said all along the bond holders own the mortgages as security for there money loaned to the lenders BUT their NOT going to tell the borrowers of this are they can you see every court claim needing the bond holders to be named on the claim and coming to court, all the tax questions etc. etc.,

 

 

(did you get my mail re log book by the way)

[JonCris]

Haven't checked yet

 

What was the outcome of your hearing what did the judge decide?

[IS IT ME?]

because of company going under had arrears and just wanted to re mortgage but company wanted house so after I stated the facts and showed mortgage sale listing to judge. he broke for lunch were barr/solicitor for the company offered re mortgage with a new co was going took this but then found out ERC was added

which is what I am on here for.

BUT STILL ONE HAS ANSWERED THE QUESTION I PUT ON HERE.

[Suetonius]

But You Have Not Answered The Question What Do The Bond Holders Get For There Millions???? If The Company Goes Belle Up Then But Your Quotes They Loss All There Money, I Don't Think So.

Do You Work For One By The Way?

No Company Is Going To Show Any One The Sale Agreement And Why Is This, Don't Ask Because Ive Tried To See This And Asked A Court To Force The Company To Show This But They Screamed Like A Pig Not To Show It Giving Every Reason Not To Again Why?

Have You Paid A Erc Of £20k No Then Ask Some One Who Has Where This Moneys Gone!

 

1) They receive the repayment of the money that they have previously provided and interest. They don't just do it for fun.

 

2) To which company going belle up are you referring to ?

 

Do you mean the original lender or the SPV, or one of the other companies involved ?

 

If you are refering to your mortgage provider "going belle up", then this should answer your question:

 

Bankruptcy remote

 

A key concern in securitisation transactions to ensure that the transfer of assets of the originator to the investors' representative or SPV is not affected by bankruptcy or distress of the originator.

 

This necessitates certain legal precautions in structuring the assignment of receivables, as also so constituting the SPV that it can neither be taken to liquidation by the shareholders of the originator, nor by those of the SPV itself. Further, the structure should also ensure that the SPV would not be treated as the subset of the originator by substantice consolidation. Such a structure is called bankruptcy remote structure.

 

3) And who do you think I work for ?

 

Mortgage Lender, SPV ?

 

Why is it when someone posts unpopular information (which I have supported with fact) they are always accused of working for the bad guys.

 

4) And no, I have not had the misfortune to pay anyone an ERC of £20k.

 

5) If you have any further questions that you need an answer, I suggest you try Google. It is amazing the things that you can find. For example, everything that I have posted on this thread has been found via a google or yahoo search.

 

So in future you can save me the trouble and do it yourself

[Smarterchick]

Excellent advice Smarterchick:).................however if anyone is already being seriously threatened with repossession then I suggest they have nothing to lose & everything to gain by introducing these arguments as part of their fightback;-)

 

If you have nothing more to lose then I'd agree JC - half these Judges would be suprised at these kinds of evidence being presented, if nothing else, it buys time while lawyers and judges scurry off to explore what's been put before them, but if you lose it just increases costs of course.

 

 

Seutonius - cold shower :D

[IS IT ME?]

SS,

WELL CHILL MAN,

but I notice you have not answered the question of how or what security the bond holders have and I take it you have read the document from one company with C and ending i (lol) which IF YOU HAD GOOGLED you would find is behind most of these with chase Manhantten New York.

As in these times is the SFV goes broke then they have nothing as that is what has happened in the sub prime market in the US L/B for one ( look at GMAC-RFC for one)

If you feel or think there is nothing in this way do you not get a sale agreement then? as the companies can say what they like, you and I can say nothing else and they know it they work the LAW to what they need and its smoke and mirrors. smoke and mirrors my friend and that is why they will never EVER give you or any one else these details.

[JonCris]

You have a point IIM. In that well worn phrase if they've now't to hide why not disclose the true owner:confused: