Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred

[frettful38]

Very well explained smarterchick I totally agree with you. Debates are good and we can all learn a lot on here.

[JonCris]

Good Evening, JonCris,

 

Thanks, I thought there must have been more to it, I was only going by the Supreme Courts Costs Guide.

 

2.6 The Indemnity Principle The principle is that a successful party cannot recover from an unsuccessful party more by way of costs than the successful party is liable to pay his or her legal representatives. There are several exceptions to the principle including the statutory exceptions concerning legal aid and conditional fee agreements. There have been calls for the total abolition of the principle. Unless and until that occurs the following three propositions continue to apply: (i) A party in whose favour an order for costs has been made may not recover more than he is liable to pay his own solicitors: Harold v

SmithGundry

v

Sainsbury

[1865] H&N 381 at 385 and [1910] 1KB 645 CA. (ii) Where a party puts a statement of costs before the court for summary assessment that statement must be signed by the party or a legal representative. The form states: "The costs estimated above do not exceed the costs which the [party] is liable to pay in respect of the work which this estimate covers." (iii) The signature of a statement of costs or a bill for detailed assessment by a solicitor is in normal circumstances sufficient to enable the court to be satisfied that the indemnity principle has not been breached in respect of costs payable under a conventional bill: Bailey v IBC Vehicles Ltd [1998] 3 All ER 570 CA. However, the same may not be true in respect of costs payable under a conditional fee agreement:

Hollins

v Russell [2003] 1 WLR 2487.

 

Of course correct sue but the indemnity principal does not operate in isolation. It operates anywhere there is a loss insomuch as the litigants 'loss' must be a true loss. I say litigant because in most such cases it would appear that the litigant (a firm) is not a loser in the true sense of the word as they are insured

 

Also referring back to an earlier comment of yours when you stated there is no incentive on the part of the lender to force the repo because of the under value they would receive when the property is disposed of.

 

I'm afraid I have to disagree sue in that the bond holder can no longer trade the bond because of fears raised in the market knows that once the borrower defaults that triggers the bond holders entitlement to full compensation for any loss they might incur at sale.

 

Also as is common place the originator puts in place a form of GAP insurance, paid for by the borrower, which will compensate for any shortfall on the loan & it's this insurer who will then pursue the borrower to be recompensed for their loss

 

Where's supersleuth:confused: as he/she really needs to contribute to the thread

[Smarterchick]

Of course correct sue but the indemnity principal does not operate in isolation. It operates anywhere there is a loss insomuch as the litigants 'loss' must be a true loss. I say litigant because in most such cases it would appear that the litigant (a firm) is not a loser in the true sense of the word as they are insured

 

Also referring back to an earlier comment of yours when you stated there is no incentive on the part of the lender to force the repo because of the under value they would receive when the property is disposed of.

 

I'm afraid I have to disagree sue in that the bond holder can no longer trade the bond because of fears raised in the market knows that once the borrower defaults that triggers the bond holders entitlement to full compensation for any loss they might incur at sale.

 

Also as is common place the originator puts in place a form of GAP insurance, paid for by the borrower, which will compensate for any shortfall on the loan & it's this insurer who will then pursue the borrower to be recompensed for their loss

 

Where's supersleuth:confused: as he/she really needs to contribute to the thread

 

 

Okay, just to prove me wrong in that you keep it short and sweet !

 

Thanks JC - Supersleuth said he/she was going to be away for Easter and will be back afterwards.

[JonCris]

I know SC and there's more;) The fact that bond holders have been exercising their right to compensation is the reason why insurer AIG had to be one of the 1st firms to be rescued by the Americans otherwise it would have gone bust causing many more financial institutions throughout the World to hit the buffers

 

Also I do agree with SuperSleuth in that this crisis was manufactured by those who saw their triple A investment lose value because of an inability to trade them. These trades were & are nothing more that a massive pyramid scheme or if you would prefer Ponzi Scheme........Imagine 'pass the parcel' where no one wants to be left holding it when the music stops............ Problem is for you to pass the parcel there needs to be someone willing to take it from you & as there wasn't anyone willing to add to their risk the whole thing came crashing down on all our heads

[IS IT ME?]

Sue

As I don't know who you are that would be a little difficult. There have already been cases where the ERC has been refunded following repossession. However, as I understand it, in your own circumstances there were repossession proceedings but your home was not repossessed.

 

As you do not appear to have a thread on this topic, I have only been able to gain a limited amout of information. However, it would appear that the outcome was that you re mortgaged.

 

well you have just confirmed what I've said you DO work for the lenders as there is no way you would know this as you say there is no thread on this.

But I did not remortage and as I say I fully believe the point about the borrowers under repo are not in the same legaue as those who the lenders are taking to court as they have not chosen to redeem early.

And yes Jon we have put in the the contract has changed becuase of the secritisation and has become an ' unfair contract '

(jon I did send you emails which have not been answered):-|

[Suetonius]

 

Sue said:

"As I don't know who you are that would be a little difficult. There have already been cases where the ERC has been refunded following repossession. However, as I understand it, in your own circumstances there were repossession proceedings but your home was not repossessed.

 

As you do not appear to have a thread on this topic, I have only been able to gain a limited amout of information. However, it would appear that the outcome was that you re mortgaged."

 

IS IT ME ?said:

well you have just confirmed what I've said you DO work for the lenders as there is no way you would know this as you say there is no thread on this.

 

I am now seriously concerned that you are either paranoid or completely delusional, I am not sure which.

 

Because what of I said above, I must therefore work for a lender as there is no other way I could know ???

 

What ????

 

Firstly, if I did work for the "lenders" as you put it, how would that help me to know more about your circumstances ?? You do know that they don't all share the same account database don't you !!

 

Secondly and this is the reason I am seriously concerned. I don't know because I work for a lender..

I know because you told me !!!

 

 

SS that is what I've said all a long. when we were in court for repro I asked the question do you own our mortgage still? answer its not relevant to this case the judge stated it should be, we will break for lunch and continue at 2.

 

The lender then stuck a deal with me which thinking on it now was so stupid now that I think about it and the one thing I regret but I signed an agreement and I am now going after them for the ERC of £14K which is some thing for nothing and no one can tell me what its for or why it there and that is what people should be going after them for.

 

100 repo's at £14K to £20K each not bad and that's why they do the repo's as quick as they can. As I say you will NEVER be told what is going on as it will come down like the Bank charges.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2093660.html

 

[Smarterchick]

Hey look. You two both contribute valuable sides of the same coin - don't let this get personal, no matter how different your views get..the debate is much wider. Just imagine this thread as challenging both sides so that the readers who are unable to post for whatever reasons get a balanced and healthy argument.

 

I know who seutonius is. He does NOT work for a lender - that I will guarantee. Take the information he lays out as playing devils advocate because that's the best anyone on these forum can do to flush out every angle we can possibly think of FOR FREE...if you end up facing a real barrister in a real court there will be little time for debating differences and a whopping great bill for the loser..so come on, just lay out your own experiences, without mallice, with the intention of it being for the greater good of all who read these posts and so we can all come to our own decisions like JC says on how we take our own cases forward. It doesn't matter who's right or wrong, just put your knowledge and experience to the test without thinking this is personal - I don't think anyone gives a monkeys toss who anyone is at the end of the day, but the result in knowing how to tackle AND WIN in the courts is what this forum is about because NO ONE wants ANYONE to lose their house without every angle being researched... GOT IT? - good..now lets move on..

 

SC

[Suetonius]

I seriously can't be bothered anymore

 

I am wrong and you are right. I made up all the information that I have posted in this thread.

 

Just say the two magic words "Mortgage Securitisation" to a judge and hey presto your home will not be repossessed. It is really that easy.

 

Good Luck All !!!

[JonCris]

I Don't often say this cos I love a good argument but please pack it in this is to important for many home owners:mad: & we might just be getting somewhere

 

Sue don't you dare disappear you I have arguments to consider;)

 

ISITME your correct some home owners have recovered the ERC but since the ruling sue mentions many such claims have been dropped as the costs risk for the LiP has been to great......in fact I do recall a warning against such claims being posted on this site straight after the ruling

Edited April 12, 2009 by JonCris

[paulwlton]

I Don't often say this cos I love a good argument but please pack it in this is to important for many home owners:mad: & we might just be getting somewhere

 

Sue don't you dare disappear you I have arguments to consider;)

 

ISITME your correct some home owners have recovered the ERC but since the ruling sue mentions many such claims have been dropped as the costs risk for the LiP has been to great......in fact I do recall a warning against such claims being posted on this site straight after the ruling

 

Zootsccot (site helper) advised members against claiming.

[Smarterchick]

Zootsccot (site helper) advised members against claiming.

 

 

She did indeed: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/62003-important-mortgage-claimants-please.html

 

 

[paulwlton]

Hi all,

 

Take a look at what I found on the Treasury Commitee website in respect of the banking crisis. It contains written evidence and there is some interesting info on securitisation. A must read for anyone interested in the legal issues of securitisation and is very clear and easy to understand which helps.

 

I have downloaded the memo from the Treasury Commitee website and converted it to pdf for easier viewing. Download it and take a look it is memo number 107 by Carmel Butler.

 

 

Shafted springs to mind.

[bustthematrix]

...We are all stronger for everyones contribution from IS IT ME to joe blogs and believe me, no-one is trying to make fun of anyone, this is not a funny subject and perhaps if it could be seen that seutonius sees how serious it is and is just making sure nobody goes in blind then I think this whole debate will move forward better.

 

Just my own thoughts. SC

Well said SC. You be tha mama on this thread!

[bustthematrix]

I seriously can't be bothered anymore ......

Good Luck All !!!

Hey come on!!! You must have known, surely, as one who likes to play 'devil's advocate' that the devil (that 'ol b*gger) needs no advocate!

Of course you're going to get the majority of posters on this thread arguing counter to your positions and on occasion, having a go at you! Please take it in your stride - it's all part of the healthy debate, and I think, to a point, you actually enjoyed challenging everyone to overcome your arguments which is great. The fact it was starting to get a bit personal simply highlights how deep rooted the feelings of injustice etc over these matters are and we don't always know how to seperate our own personal drama from the actual facts being discussed.

 

As SC has so elaborately, sagely and empathically stated, with motherly wisdom, "we are all stronger for everyone's contribution" . No that's true actually and it's been why this thread has thrived and gotten to 600+ posts!

 

Come on peeps - no need to get personal (that's what PM's, emails, phone calls etc are for...). More useful discoveries are on the horizon so... LET'S KEEP THE BALL IN PLAY

Edited April 13, 2009 by bustthematrix

[IS IT ME?]

Of course you're going to get the majority of posters on this thread arguing counter to your positions and on occasion, having a go at you! Please take it in your stride - it's all part of the healthy debate, and I think, to a point, you actually enjoyed challenging everyone to overcome your arguments which is great. The fact it was starting to get a bit personal simply highlights how deep rooted the feelings of injustice etc over these matters are and we don't always know how to seperate our own personal drama from the actual facts being discussed.

 

As I've stated and as NO ONE has been able (Please Note) that what is said in the Mortgage sale document is where I fully believe the truth lies.

As the lender was not going to do any but repo BUT when told to supply this document,

OHHHHHHHH the whole world charged, we could then get a re mortgage, (until this time) No way but in half an hour we got one and that's the deal.

So when some one gets this document then we will see.

By the way one that you should check is RMAC 2000 NSI Plc and there deal with Chase Manhattan Bank NY and how a company which was insolvent in Dec 1998 yet could be able to borrow £227M though them yet there are NO charges at L/R for this?

[Smarterchick]

Of course you're going to get the majority of posters on this thread arguing counter to your positions and on occasion, having a go at you! Please take it in your stride - it's all part of the healthy debate, and I think, to a point, you actually enjoyed challenging everyone to overcome your arguments which is great. The fact it was starting to get a bit personal simply highlights how deep rooted the feelings of injustice etc over these matters are and we don't always know how to seperate our own personal drama from the actual facts being discussed.

 

 

As I've stated and as NO ONE has been able (Please Note) that what is said in the Mortgage sale document is where I fully believe the truth lies.

As the lender was not going to do any but repo BUT when told to supply this document,

OHHHHHHHH the whole world charged, we could then get a re mortgage, (until this time) No way but in half an hour we got one and that's the deal.

So when some one gets this document then we will see.

By the way one that you should check is RMAC 2000 NSI Plc and there deal with Chase Manhattan Bank NY and how a company which was insolvent in Dec 1998 yet could be able to borrow £227M though them yet there are NO charges at L/R for this?

 

 

Sorry IIM, I sometimes find it difficult to follow what you say in the 'sentence?'

 

What you are saying is what we all know, the truth lies in the sales document and we have to wait until someone is able to extract one during litigation or by other 'investigative' ways.

 

Can you perhaps explain quite what you mean in this sentence then please

 

"As the lender was not going to do any but repo BUT when told to supply this document,

OHHHHHHHH the whole world charged, we could then get a re mortgage, (until this time) No way but in half an hour we got one and that's the deal."

 

Now am I/we to believe or understand from that sentence that you went to court, managed to access one of these sales documents and within half an hour managed to get a re-mortgage? If so, can you share this document so we know what it is you are talking about?

 

Thanks

 

SC

[IS IT ME?]

SC,

no that is what I am saying and its clear

THEY DID NOT WISH FOR THIS DOCUMENT TO SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY IN COURT AND THAT IS WHY IT WAS DONE.

which until I asked for it no deal or remortgage could be done or offered by ANY other lender.

But when it was asked for and agreed that it should be part of the documents when we had a re mortgage with an other lender at rates lower. All I will add a able to do is look at the details I gave.:-|

[Smarterchick]

SC,

no that is what I am saying and its clear

THEY DID NOT WISH FOR THIS DOCUMENT TO SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY IN COURT AND THAT IS WHY IT WAS DONE.

which until I asked for it no deal or remortgage could be done or offered by ANY other lender.

But when it was asked for and agreed that it should be part of the documents when we had a re mortgage with an other lender at rates lower. All I will add a able to do is look at the details I gave.:-|

 

 

Sorry, I don't understand a word you're saying...I can't get my head around your phrasing...It's not clear, that's why I'm asking...

 

which until I asked for it(the sales document I presume) no deal or remortgage could be done or offered by ANY other lender. Why?

 

a) They (the mortgage company I presume) did not wish to produce the document, but you had obviously asked for it?

 

b)- who agreed it should be part of the 'documents'? (I take that to mean your Witness Statement?)

 

c) You had asked previously for a re-mortgage with another lender

 

d) All I will add a able to do is look at the details I gave.:-| what does that mean?

[IS IT ME?]

well you must understand becuase you answered it.

I am not going to give too much away here.

as you know the lenders watch this site.

in my last post I gave the name of a secritisation to look at its very clear

if you don't under stand then don't reply simple a!

[Smarterchick]

well you must understand becuase you answered it.

I am not going to give too much away here.

as you know the lenders watch this site.

in my last post I gave the name of a secritisation to look at its very clear

if you don't under stand then don't reply simple a!

 

IS IT ME, people who know me on this forum and I've been on it since early 2006) will know that I have the greatest of patience combined with the greatest respect for anyone coming on to these forums seeking advice no matter how much or how little they know - everyone has something.

 

I must say though, you have me licked. You have a very valid story, that is obvious and somehow you wish to share it without, quite naturally, giving too much away to the trolls - couldn't agree more, good move. BUT..I find trying to discuss or debate things just a little difficult to follow with you, so I will read what you have written and try and discover from between the lines what it is you are trying to tell us, but if you don't mind I'll refrain from replying or commenting on anything you write and wait until you are in a position to share your story, in full once you are in a position to do so. Your contribution is as valuable as anyone else's, but I'm not a magician or a mind reader so I'll skip trying to understand or replying, just as you suggest.

 

SC

[JonCris]

What ISITME is saying is that when the mortgage is securitized (which happens at the outset) the management (for want of a better term) cannot vary/change the terms of the securitization agreement........this is irrespective as to what the mortgage agreement states such as the implied term they would help the borrower in times of difficulty as per the Morgage Lenders Code etc..............Furthermore this fact if exposed to the court would demonstrate that the bond holder via the management company such as Capstone has absolutely NO intention of complying with the terms of the original mortgage agreement ............thereby opening the way to challenge the mortgage agreement as having been sold under what amount to false pretenses

 

This is also why I introduced the 'unfair relationship' argument into the debate & which sue agrees might have some merit. It may be a substitute for action rather than arguing about who owns what

 

However both arguments rely on exposing the securitization agreement in court & it's their reluctance to do so that has caused creditors, such as in the case of ISITME, to withdraw their opposition to him/her re-mortgaging once they realized the game was up........ by order of the court.

 

This is also why he/she feels an injustice was done in that his new mortgage lender had to pay a large ERC to the original lender when in fact the securitization expressly forbids the right to remortgage. In other words why should they be paid for something they wanted to block

Edited April 14, 2009 by JonCris

[Smarterchick]

What ISITME is saying is that when the mortgage is securitized (which happens at the outset) the management (for want of a better term) cannot vary/change the terms of the securitization agreement........this is irrespective as to what the mortgage agreement states such as the implied term they would help the borrower in times of difficulty as per the Morgage Lenders Code etc..............Furthermore this fact if exposed to the court would demonstrate that the bond holder via the management company such as Capstone has absolutely NO intention of complying with the terms of the original mortgage agreement ............thereby opening the way to challenge the mortgage agreement as having been sold under what amount to false pretenses

 

This is also why I introduced the 'unfair relationship' argument into the debate & which sue agrees might have some merit. It may be a substitute for action rather than arguing about who owns what

 

However both arguments rely on exposing the securitization agreement in court & it's their reluctance to do so that has caused creditors, such as in the case of ISITME, to withdraw their opposition to him/her re-mortgaging once they realized the game was up........ by order of the court.

 

This is also why he/she feels an injustice was done in that his new mortgage lender had to pay a large ERC to the original lender when in fact the securitization expressly forbids the right to remortgage. In other words why should they be paid for something they wanted to block

 

 

Thank you JC,

 

The Unfair Relationship angle I find interesting and a good observation by you. It deviated from the original full blooded securitisation issue in Carmel Butlers memo debated within these threads, IS IT ME is way ahead of us then in what you describe he has experienced.

 

Mortgage companies, mine included, will not divulge any information with regards to these securitisations although I more or less have my own details now found through my own devices, would have been simpler if they just produced them. You might also like to bear in mind that this Unfair Relationship could be further supported by something I extracted from my bank... their Lending Policy Document in force at the time of the initial mortgage and any additional ones if further advances have been provided. They fight like dogs to ensure you don't get it, but it's a goldmine and holy grail of their lending policy procedures which, in harmony with this Unfair relationship proof being required could give considerable support to your arguments. Not many know about this document, but it's there for the asking and the banks own gun to shoot themselves in the foot with...

 

SC

[JonCris]

As Carmel has stated the problem for the company, whether it be the originator or the SPV, is that scrutiny of the contract reveals a loaded gun.......namely the failure to register the true owner which in it's self is a criminal offense & a serious one at that.

 

The FSA are well aware of this failure on the part of the lender & the SPV but choose, as appears to be their want these days, to ignore it completely............ so completely in fact that there may be grounds for accusing the FSA, which after all is a private company, of a criminal conspiricy........... in addition if not criminal there may also be grounds for bringing a civil case against the FSA for maladministration.......... I would certainly consider complaining to the ombudsman

[Smarterchick]

As Carmel has stated the problem for the company, whether it be the originator or the SPV, is that scrutiny of the contract reveals a loaded gun.......namely the failure to register the true owner which in it's self is a criminal offense & a serious one at that.

 

The FSA are well aware of this failure on the part of the lender & the SPV but choose, as appears to be their want these days, to ignore it completely............ so completely in fact that there may be grounds for accusing the FSA, which after all is a private company, of a criminal conspiricy........... in addition if not criminal there may also be grounds for bringing a civil case against the FSA for maladministration.......... I would certainly consider complaining to the ombudsman

 

Just for clarification JC....at what juncture then does the line get drawn on who the owner is at any particular time of the procedure? Also, these spv's seem to liquidate after a few years, so I presume these assets are sold on yet again somewhere else?

 

for example:

 

a) When the mortgage is taken out - the 'title owner' I'd presume to be the mortgage provider who registers their name at the Land Registry

 

b) when the mortgage provider securitises the mtg - the owner is ?

 

Now in the position of b) all the paperwork I have seen (which I accept may not be legal as per CB, but lets ignore that for the minute) indicates that this has all been securitised under equitable assignment. If that is the case, does legal ownership change with equitable assignment and to whom - the Trust company, the SPV or to whom or does it remain with the originator?

 

c) IF CB is correct and title changes or should have changed then legal title should of course be registered at the LR.

[JonCris]

Just for clarification JC....at what juncture then does the line get drawn on who the owner is at any particular time of the procedure? Also, these spv's seem to liquidate after a few years, so I presume these assets are sold on yet again somewhere else?

 

for example:

 

a) When the mortgage is taken out - the 'title owner' I'd presume to be the mortgage provider who registers their name at the Land Registry

 

b) when the mortgage provider securitises the mtg - the owner is ? The SPV

 

Now in the position of b) all the paperwork I have seen (which I accept may not be legal as per CB, but lets ignore that for the minute) indicates that this has all been securitised under equitable assignment. If that is the case, does legal ownership change with equitable assignment and to whom - the Trust company, the SPV or to whom or does it remain with the originator? legal ownership carries with it the duties AND obligations of the originator - legal ownership 'is good for the world'

 

c) IF CB is correct and title changes or should have changed then legal title should of course be registered at the LR.

correct. The parties are using the 'gap' allowed to register from one to another without any intention of registering the true owner in the the 1st place. It's a clear breach of criminal law