Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred

[Suetonius]

Yes the arguments are very clear on both sides. Forensic legal examination of this issue - and indeed all the issues - in a test case is surely the way forward. The point has been extensively discussed and debated. It's high time it started to wend its way through the courts potentially all the way to the newly established Supreme Court (As of this October).

 

I say what we need is vigorous preparation for this eventuality. We have to learn from the OFT bank charges carve up which put a stay on all hearings but allowed the banks to continue charging. This needs some serious thinking about.

 

WE have to influence the terms of any moratorium that could result to the general benefit of the consumer.

 

Remember that some of the issues have already been subject to a court case

[supersleuth]

Hi Suetonius,

 

Let me proffer a proposition to help you understand why a law firm would advise their client's incorrectly on the law. It is this practical reality:

 

Law firms are full of lawyers who could more accurately be described as administrators especially if the lawyer is a transactional lawyer as distinct from a litigator lawyer. These administrator lawyers rarely read any law, cases, statutes etc. In fact, what they do is pull up an OLD precendent of the e.g. sale/purchase agreement and then change names and dates. I would call it the cut and paste lawyers. Hence, when there is a fundamental change in the law e.g. s.27 they really do need to do some real legal work and amend the OLD precendent documents accordingly. Well obviously, none of them considered the LRA 2002!...but they carried on using the OLD precedents....so whilst we lay people may think that these high falutin legal seagulls are so clever??...actually, they're lazy administrators who cut and paste!!!....would that proposition of the practical reality of work in a law firm cure any confusion? Of course, if you believe that these high flying lawyers are real clever and infallible, then that proposition won't work for you...again, there's no hard and fast answer to this query.

 

As for some of the issues having already been litigated - yep - no worries.

 

Note: keep trying to correct the words "Im an orange" to read "LEGAL B E A G L E S", which is what I typed...but the edit won't work - spooky that the techo gremlins keeps defaulting to "I'm an orange" - would have preferred it to say "lemon"

Edited April 18, 2009 by supersleuth

[enoughisenough]

If you are referring to Pender I don't think they had a chance. It was inherently flawed.

 

In respect of any forthcoming case that ends up in the High Court I think there could be a leapfrog procedure to the law lords or the CA might hear it and distinguishes on the facts. You have to admit the unique circumstances of that case are sufficiently distinguishable from any case to which we might be referring. Or do you not concede even this?

 

With respect.

 

Cheers EIE. Keep the faith

[Suetonius]

If you are referring to Pender I don't think they had a chance. It was inherently flawed.

 

I am referring to the judgements made in the Pender case. Which it can be argued that some are flawed but they are still judgements.

 

I am somewhat bemused by the way people appear to think that the pender judgments are of no or of very little importance.

[supersleuth]

Hi Suetonius,

 

Don't be bemused, or consider that people think that the pender case is of no importance or that the judgement is flawed - as mentioned before - this case has not been up for full discussion on the public forum (yet).

[enoughisenough]

I am not saying the judgments are flawed - but if you say that some of the judgments are then I'm happy to concur.

 

I'm saying that the whole basis of their case was flawed. Incidentally I think it is of importance as it shows how difficult it may well be to persuade a court that super's argument is legally sound.

 

As I said earlier. It's high time this was properly tested and I fail to subscribe to the view that Pender represents a proper testing of these issues.

[Smarterchick]

Blimey, concensus

 

Could I just elevate one particular issue that falls within some of your debating which has just had a mention but no discussions about and that being 'the unlawful charges'?

 

If we are to follow this further then a presentation to the court of our claim might require detailed breakdown of what we are deeming unlawful or extortianate charges. Any chance one wiser than I could begin a breakdown of some of the items one might include in this ?

[Suetonius]

but the edit won't work - spooky that the techo gremlins keeps defaulting to "I'm an orange" - would have preferred it to say "lemon"

 

What have you got against oranges ???

 

I will have you know I like oranges lol (just joking with you)

[Suetonius]

Blimey, concensus

 

Could I just elevate one particular issue that falls within some of your debating which has just had a mention but no discussions about and that being 'the unlawful charges'?

 

If we are to follow this further then a presentation to the court of our claim might require detailed breakdown of what we are deeming unlawful or extortianate charges. Any chance one wiser than I could begin a breakdown of some of the items one might include in this ?

 

 

What are you charges are you referring to ?

 

Missed / Late Payment Charges (usually £20-£35 per payment)

Arrears Fee (usually £50+ per month)

 

Now if you pay by direct debit you get charged twice for each returned payment... once on your current account and again on your mortgage account. How fair is that, you could end up paying £40 - £100 in payment charges per month and an arrears charge of £50...

 

(me not a fan of these charges)

[Suetonius]

If you are referring to Pender I don't think they had a chance. It was inherently flawed.

 

In respect of any forthcoming case that ends up in the High Court I think there could be a leapfrog procedure to the law lords or the CA might hear it and distinguishes on the facts. You have to admit the unique circumstances of that case are sufficiently distinguishable from any case to which we might be referring. Or do you not concede even this?

 

With respect.

 

Cheers EIE. Keep the faith

 

The circumstances are indeed very different but the basic argument is exactly the same, is a lender entitled to repossess once a mortgage has been securitised. In that particular case, the answer was yes.

[enoughisenough]

Hi smarter

 

IMHO, and I willingly stand to be corrected, the following:

 

Arrears Interest if unlawfully (ie outside what would normally be considered fair) or inconsistently applied.

Arrears Management Fees

Litigation fees which are not reasonable

Litigation management Fees

Direct Debit Failure charges

Late payment charges

 

These all stack up to a pretty penny. In addition interest that is applied will be unlawful if a repayment contract was agreed and none of the payments are applied to the capital but are stacked up in such a way as to repay all the interest up front first meaning that even relatively late in the term up to about 3/4 or even 4/5 of the way through the capital doesn't take any dent whatever.

 

Just another unscrupulous and almost certainly unlawful ruse to screw you out of as much dough as possible as a prelude to then screwing you out of your home. UTTCR's seem a pretty formidable weapon - witness the banks near universal capitulation before the stitch up between them and the OFT.

 

Don't just take my word for It. Have a look at what they regard as the principal risks in their prospectus. I would firmly argue that they have repudiated the contract as the true contract as it operates de facto I should have signed was the one the investors saw in the prospectus - not the flimsy bit of rubbish I did sign with no bearing on the realities of how the contract operates. I'll say this again a bit louder. UNILATERAL REPUDIATION OF CONTRACT!!! ooh I'm feeling mischevious today!

 

Cheers EIE. Keep the faith.

[Suetonius]

I am not saying the judgments are flawed - but if you say that some of the judgments are then I'm happy to concur.

 

I'm saying that the whole basis of their case was flawed. Incidentally I think it is of importance as it shows how difficult it may well be to persuade a court that super's argument is legally sound.

 

As I said earlier. It's high time this was properly tested and I fail to subscribe to the view that Pender represents a proper testing of these issues.

 

You have hit the nail on the head.

 

In Court it does not matter what you know or what you think is right or what you think is wrong.

 

It is what you can get the judge to agree too, or persude him/her that is true. As evidenced by my numerous posts, the securitisation defence is by no means watertight

[enoughisenough]

Well you may be right. I'm not a Judge at any level - that will be for their determination. My argument is that it needs to be tested. Of course there is always the view that the enormity of the consequences that Super is right challenge the most gargantuan interests and it simply can't be allowed to succeed. However I have faith that all the arguments will be heard and that the rule of law is paramount, because the English Legal System is the envy of the world.

 

Cheers EIE. Keep the faith.

[Suetonius]

These all stack up to a pretty penny. In addition interest that is applied will be unlawful if a repayment contract was agreed and none of the payments are applied to the capital but are stacked up in such a way as to repay all the interest up front first meaning that even relatively late in the term up to about 3/4 or even 4/5 of the way through the capital doesn't take any dent whatever.

 

Are there mortgage accounts that operate this way ??

 

I thought most mortgages operate in one of three ways.

 

1) Interest Only

 

Your monthly payment is used to pay back the interest and at the end of the term, you owe exactly the same amount as you did when you started

 

2) Repayment

 

Your monthly payment is used to pay back the interest and the capital balance of your mortgage. During the term of the mortgage the capital balance decreases and so does the amount of interest you pay.

 

So if you are paying £500.00, to start with £450.00 will be interest and £50.00 will be capital reduction. As the capital balance reduces the capital / interest split of your payments changes, so towards the end of your mortgage you are paying £500.00 with £100.00 interest and £400.00 capital reduction.

 

3) Part & Part

 

Starting balance £100,000

 

£50,000 interest only and £50,000 repayment

 

After the term of the mortgage, you are left with the interest only element to repay

[enoughisenough]

I've bloody got one! That's exactly what they've being doing the cheeky monkey. I will give you a fictional illustration that doesn't reveal me although I think I may have been flushed out anyway! Hey ho!

 

50K second mortgage capital and repayment - no doubt about it.

 

Lets call this over ten years at say £500 per month (it doesn't really matter)

 

After let us say 3 years the total amount paid would have been 18K. Some of that is obviously interest and some of it by definition must be capital. Depending on how they stack it lets say that they work it so the interst is in the main payable before the capital. Lets say 2o% Capital 80% interest.

 

YOu would then think that at least 3600 had come of the capital wouldn't you (just keeping it really basic here) and guess what you'd be wrong!! I nearly choked on my conflakes (deliberate misspelling of a well known breakfast cereal) when I found out!

 

Ok now say i get into difficulties and start missing payments maybe totalling 3 months or so - not necessarily consecutively. As well as these arrears and payments and despite paying well in excess of a 3rd of the principal I find they are Claiming (illustratively of Course) £55000. Go figure that one out!

 

It is probably systemic. So... can we get some qualified legal opinion on this I was going to say sleight of hand but more like fist of hand. Another piece in the jigsaw - no intention of honouring the term and an absolute determination to screw people out of their homes.

 

Grounds for repudiation of contract anyone. Oh and Seutonius since you are both sceptical and very very well informed have a look at this in the round as it were. I bet there are thousands who don't even know that this is happening.

 

cheers EIE

[Suetonius]

I wouldn't need to see an illustration.

 

If you can state the actual figures, I could most likely check if something is wrong using Excel (best to start a seperate thread through)

[JonCris]

It is a fact that repayment mortgages ARE now a con in that what's done with your payments is manipulated to ensure the 'owners' & 'administrators' never lose any income/fees............... Overtime this results in very little being paid off the capital

 

Also I'm surprised with you sue to suggest that lawyers, even large ones, are infallible in their advice to clients shows little understanding of the legal profession

[enoughisenough]

Hi Suetonius.

 

Would you mind giving me you actual profession?

 

There is no way on this earth I am going to post the actual figures. The principal is clear - a third of the original paid off the mortgage goes up. Can people start getting real to the massive fraud that is going on here and the fact that the lawyers, the brokers and banks are more of a threat to people's well being and security than a few hoodies. PLEASE! This is NUTS.

[Suetonius]

Also I'm surprised with you sue to suggest that lawyers, even large ones, are infallible in their advice to clients shows little understanding of the legal profession

Hello JC The point I was trying to make was that if the banks/spv/investors/lawyers all know that the legal title is transferred, why do they say in their internal client note that it is an equitable assignment. It just does not make sense.

 

Besides which, I personally consider that the content is correct in relation to the requirement for a notice of assignment under s.136 of the LOP

Edited April 18, 2009 by Suetonius

[Suetonius]

Hi Suetonius.

 

Would you mind giving me you actual profession?

 

 

I can assure you that I do not work for a bank / mortgage lender or any other kind of financial institution.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Suetonius

[Suetonius]

It is a fact that repayment mortgages ARE now a con in that what's done with your payments is manipulated to ensure the 'owners' & 'administrators' never lose any income/fees............... Overtime this results in very little being paid off the capital

 

I was not aware (except for the introduction or daily and monthly interest calculations) that the way in which payments are applied to a mortgage had changed, in years

 

How have repayment mortgages changed JC ?

 

As far as I am aware interest is still accrued on an annual basis (either calculated daily, monthly or annually) and the monthly payment is used to repay the interest accrued and the remainder of the monthly payment used to reduce the capital balance

Edited April 18, 2009 by Suetonius

[Suetonius]

However, as I suggested to debate the way interest is calculated and applied to a mortgage, it may be more beneficial to start a new thread and keep this one for securitisation.

[enoughisenough]

I think you missed the point. I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. I merely responded to you asking me for actual figures.Of course I won't post these and of course you should not post your profession.

 

The illustration is a perfectly clear example of what is happening.

 

it should suffice. A repayment mortgage in which no capital is deducted -ever- Please. Give me a break.

 

This is just not on. the spin-meisters will be getting busy now just to confuse me into believing it is all above board, hunky dory and oak old chap. No doubt the bottom trouser leg will shake when this gets to court as well.

 

Pure unadulterated rubbish from top to bottom - the whole filthy [problem]. And I will have my day.

 

What a pile of dog-pile this is.

 

Cheers EIE. Keep the faith.

[Suetonius]

I think you missed the point. I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. I merely responded to you asking me for actual figures.Of course I won't post these and of course you should not post your profession.

 

The illustration is a perfectly clear example of what is happening.

 

it should suffice. A repayment mortgage in which no capital is deducted -ever- Please. Give me a break.

 

This is just not on. the spin-meisters will be getting busy now just to confuse me into believing it is all above board, hunky dory and oak old chap. No doubt the bottom trouser leg will shake when this gets to court as well.

 

Pure unadulterated rubbish from top to bottom - the whole filthy [problem]. And I will have my day.

 

What a pile of dog-pile this is.

 

Cheers EIE. Keep the faith.

 

As you will appreciate without knowing specific details in relation to the way in which the interest is calculated, applied and repaid to your mortgage, it is impossible to offer advice or guidance.

[Suetonius]

In an attempt to keep this thread on the topic of securitisation and taking into account that this thread is getting longer and longer, I thought it might be helpful for me to summarise why I consider that it is a equitable assignment

 

Therefore, based upon the below evidence (for a better word) I consider that the legal right to instigate repossession proceedings remains with the Mortgage Lender following securitisation.

1) Lovell Client Notes

 

I am also a little confused why a law firm would advise it's own clients (the companies involved in the securitisation process):

 

Page 2

 

"Assignment is the transfer of the benefit but not the burden of an agreement. To be a valid legal assignment under English law and so transfer title from assignor to assignee, an assignment of a loan must be in writing, be signed by the assignor, be absolute and unconditional, cover the whole of the loan and be notified in writing to the borrower. A legal assignment of a loan would therefore involve the borrower being notified of the assignment, which may not be commercially desirable."

 

2)"AN ANALYSIS OF THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF SECURITISATION" by Calvin Reis Roy LL.B., LL.M. of Gray's Inn, Barrister, London

 

Page 64

 

"A legal assignment is, therefore, one, which in writing absolutely transfers the whole contractual right to a cashflow, and the parties give express notice reflecting this transfer to the underlying debtors affected. In practice, some originators do not provide the underlying debtors with notice of the transfer. An assignment, which falls short of this, has validity and enforceability deriving from the principles of equity. An equitable assignment is one where the originator purposely fails to give notice of the transfer to the underlying debtors."

 

Page 68

 

"The clear passing of ownership and risk is another determinative factor of true sale. Under English law, both ownership and risk passes if a transfer complies with s.136 Law of Property Act 1925 which passes all legal rights, risks and remedies respecting the receivables to the transferee. It further, gives the transferee authority to discharge the debt without the aid of the transferor.

 

Once such receivables have been assigned pursuant to s. 136, the purchaser then registers its interest by filing a registration statement and/or a registration with HM Land Registry (in the case of mortgages). Typically, the originator does not give the required notice under s. 136 to the underlying debtors since such a requirement involves additional administration and costs. Thus, the transfer of the receivables does not strictly comply with s. 136 and as such the transfer is accomplished by an equitable assignment."

3) The wording of the Securitisation Prospectus.

 

As previously confirmed by Superslueth

 

the Prospectus can be taken as a true account of the underlying transaction documents. Accordingly, the Prospectus is good evidence of the facts.

 

Page 65

 

"The mortgages trustee has the right to demand that the seller give it legal title to the loans and the related security in the circumstances described in "The mortgage sale agreement – transfer of legal title to the mortgages trustee". Until then, no notice of the sale of the English loans and their related security or the Scottish loans and their related security will be given to any borrower, no application will be made to the land registry or the central land charges registry to register or record its equitable interest in the English loans and their related security and no steps will be taken to complete or perfect its title to the Scottish loans and their related security. Because the mortgages trustee has not obtained legal title to the loans or their related security, there are the following risks to the trust property"

 

Page 98

 

"Transfer of legal title to the mortgages trustee

 

Each sale of English loans and their respective related security to the mortgages trustee will be made by way of equitable assignment. Each sale of Scottish loans and their related security to the mortgages trustee will be made by way of Scottish declarations of trust under which the beneficial interest in such Scottish loans will be transferred to the mortgages trustee. In relation to Scottish loans, references in this document to the sale of loans are to be read as references to the making of such Scottish declarations of trust.This means that legal title to the loans and their related security will remain with the seller, until legal assignments or (in Scotland) assignations are delivered by the seller to the mortgages trustee and notice of such assignments or assignations is given to the borrowers."

 

 

4) Difference Between America & UK securitisation

 

"21. 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 (necessary because COBE is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a US corporation which is subject to US standards). No such requirement is imposed by UK accounting standards, nor by the FSA"

 

It would appear that in the US, securitisation has to be via a true sale. However, that is not a requirement in the UK. Therefore, if the lender retains legal title in law in the UK, securitisation has no effect on the ability of the lender to instigate legal proceedings.

 

5) Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HRMC)

 

Securitisation is a method of raising finance on the capital markets at advantageous rates of interest. Types of businesses likely to use securitisation are financial institutions, insurance companies, trading companies and any other type of business with a regular source of income. If these bodies borrow money from a bank the rate of interest charged will depend on their credit worthiness. Securitisation involves the transfer of their income into a separate trust. This enables money to be borrowed against the security of the income stream in such a way that, if the company goes bankrupt, the investor will still be repaid.

 

In the case of credit card securitisations, the arrangement involves the establishment of a receivables trust, often in Jersey (receivables are the payments due to the credit card company from its customers, including repayment of the principal on a loan or credit arrangement. This can also apply to interchange commission paid by the retailer).

 

"The credit card company transfers the beneficial interest (not the legal interest) in the receivables on a block of accounts to the trust. This is done in return for payment of the principal amount of credit provided plus a proportion of the interest due (known as the excess spread). A separate company is then set up to issue debt securities on to the capital markets to third party investors. The issuer contributes the funds received from investors to trust assets and later receives funds from the trust as necessary when payments of interest and repayments of principal fall due to investors. In the meantime, the credit card company uses the funds received from the investors to fund its business."

 

Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs confirm that (in relation to credit cards) it is only the beneficial interest and not the legal interest that is transfered.

6) Capital One tribunial

 

As mentioned above. (please see point one)

 

7) MBNA Case

 

"57. The recitals to the RSD refer to the Transferor and Receivables Trustee (MBNA and CCSE respectively) having agreed that for the purposes of facilitating a possible securitisation, the Transferor may from time to time offer to assign all Receivables (existing and future) arising on such accounts of its credit card customers as are nominated to become Designated Accounts. It is acknowledged that upon acceptance of such an offer to assign by the Receivables Trustee, the Receivables will be assigned by way of equitable assignment only unless notice of assignment should later be given. It is also expressly contemplated by the recitals that the Receivables Trustee will appoint the Operating Party for the purpose of giving instructions in relation to any available discretion capable of being exercised by the Receivables Trustee upon the terms of a separate agreement described as the "RT Operating Agreement"."

 

This particular case in the High Court, also confirms equitable assignment.

 

8 )s.136 Law of Property Act 1925*

 

"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—"

 

s.136 means that unless a notice has been given to the debtor / borrower, the assignment can only be equitable.

 

9) s.131 Land Regisitration Act 2002

 

"131 “Proprietor in possession”

(1) For the purposes of this Act, land is in the possession of the proprietor of a registered estate in land if it is physically in his possession, or in that of a person who is entitled to be registered as the proprietor of the registered estate.

 

(2) In the case of the following relationships, land which is (or is treated as being) in the possession of the second-mentioned person is to be treated for the purposes of subsection (1) as in the possession of the first-mentioned person—

(a) landlord and tenant;

(b) mortgagor and mortgagee;

© licensor and licensee;"

(d) trustee and beneficiary

 

As legal title in law has not been transferred the relationship is still mortgagor and mortgagee. Therefore the lender is still registered.

 

10) Paragon vs Pender 2005

 

Contrary to the the information previously posted by Supersleuth, this case was not an application to appeal. The application to appeal was the case in 2003

 

Confirmation from the 2005 case:

 

3) On 5 January 1995 Paragon obtained a possession order in respect of the Property. For reasons which are not material to the present appeal the possession order was not enforced, and on 21 January 2002 (some seven years later) Mr and Mrs Pender applied to set it aside. They also sought permission to appeal against the possession order out of time. On 25 November 2003 HHJ Mayer, in the Barnet County Court, dismissed both applications. Mr and Mrs Pender applied to the High Court for permission to appeal against Judge Mayer's dismissal of the application to set aside the possession order (no appeal lay from the judge's dismissal of the application for permission to appeal against the possession order).

 

4) The application for permission to appeal against Judge Mayer's dismissal of the application to set aside the possession order was listed before Peter Smith J, with the substantive appeal to follow were permission to be granted. Peter Smith J accordingly heard full argument. In the event, by his order dated 25 November 2003 he granted limited permission to appeal but went on to dismiss the substantive appeal

 

The below are three of the judgements made in this case:

 

110. It follows, in my judgment, that Paragon, so long as it remains the registered proprietor of the Legal Charge, is a necessary party to any claim to possession of the Property in right of the Legal Charge.

 

111. The only question then is whether the SPV should have been joined in the proceedings as an additional claimant. In my judgment, the answer to that question is plainly: No. On the assumption that the consideration for the transfer of the Legal Charge has been paid in full, Paragon has since retained its legal ownership of the Legal Charge as trustee for the SPV (see Whiteley v. Delaney [1914] AC 132 at 141 per Viscount Haldane LC). But it does not follow that in that situation the SPV, as the owner of the Legal Charge in equity, is a necessary party to the claim; and on the facts of the instant case joinder of the SPV is wholly unnecessary. There is, after all, no issue between the SPV and Paragon as to the exercise of the mortgagee's rights under the Legal Charge: indeed the SPV has, by virtue of the administration agreements, expressly authorised Paragon to exercise such rights on its behalf.

 

112. In my judgment, therefore, there is no substance in the contention that the SPV should have been joined as an additional claimant in the proceedings.

 

11) The Publically Avaliable Documentation

 

By using google and yahoo searches we have been able to obtain copies of the presale reports and the base prospectuses. Both of which confirm that is an equitable assignment.

 

In consideration of the above legislation, case law and supporting evidence, I am of the view that the securitisation process within the UK, would not effect the ability of a lender to instigate legal proceedings.

 

Furthermore, I am not convinced the "sales agreement" would have any real effect, I say this because a contract cannot override the legal requirements of s.136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

12) Other Sources

 

http://time.dufe.edu.cn/jingjiwencong/waiwenziliao/hpd0503pryke.pdf

 

Page 323

 

"under securitisation the mortgage itself is not sold"

 

The Viability of Asset Backed Securitisation in Emerging Markets With Reference to South Africa:Stewart Makura 2002

 

top of page 35

 

"The latter are transferable only by a written conveyance. Hence, the Law of Property Act 1925 required a written agreement to transfer actionable claims and a notice to debtors was also required. However, traditional English law has always recognised equitable transfers, that is, transfers that do not comply with the legal requirement of law, but would be recognised as setting up a legal relationship between the transferor and transferee. This means that the right of the assignee under an equitable transfer is a right against the assignor, and not a independent right against any and all. "

 

http://www.isda.org/demosite/c_and_a/ppt/ISDASecurOverviewNY012405.ppt#0

 

Slide 14 stands out;)

Originator transfers the residential mortgages to the SPV by equitable assignment, at an agreed upon value plus an amount of deferred consideration;

 

http://www.mortgagesolutions-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=214589

 

GMAC RFC has announced its first sale of residential UK mortgage assets, worth £125m, into a new funding vehicle, complementing its existing whole loan sale and securitisation programmes.

 

Within the new structure the equitable interest in the mortgage loans was purchased through the issuance of Credit Linked Notes, which have been bought by Deutsche Genossenschafts-Hypothekenbank (DGH).

 

DGH also acted as sole arranger for the deal. GMAC has retained legal title to the loans and will continue to administer the loans on behalf of the vehicle.

 

 

 

• So are we saying that all the above sources have all got it wrong ?
  
• Has anyone received a notice of assignment, to notify them that their mortgage has been assigned to a SPV ? (If so please say and post a copy of it on this thread, minus private details)
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(this is based upon the assumption that s.136 applies)

Edited April 19, 2009 by Suetonius