Securitization is 'designed to fail'

[supersleuth]

Mr Strap,

 

Tifo

The simple answer to your questions above is that the bank acts as trustee for the spv (ie on their behalf).You pay the bank who then pays the spv who then pays the investor.Your contract is with the bank.

 

Hi ANW and tifo,

 

The bank would like you to believe that it acts as trustee on behalf of the SPV. But think about it: on the day you bought your home i.e., the day that you gave the completion monies to your seller, did your seller become a trustee to you? It probably took 2 - 3 months before you were registered at the Land Register - so during that time, did you consider yourself to be a beneficiary of your home that you'd already paid for. Or did you consider that you took legal title on the day you gave the seller the purchase money?

 

In this circumstance, the law holds that as between the contracting parties, legal title passes immediately. Legal title has "attached" to the new legal owner - which was you - once you paid the completion monies. This is all logical and common sense application of law isn't it?

 

The law does not deem your seller to be your trustee, nor does the law deem you, as the new legal owner to be a mere beneficiary. Your legal title ATTACHES to you immediately as soon as you paid the purchase price. You are the person who is "entitled to be registered" at the land registry - because your legal title is ATTACHED to YOU.

 

This is the same for the banks and the SPV. As between them as contracting parties, the legal title passes from the bank to the SPV immediately that the SPV paid the completion monies. At that point the legal title ATTACHES to the SPV and the SPV is "entitled to be registered" at the land registry. Where all the prospectuses declare that the SPV is entitled to be registed at the Land Registry, they can only have such an entitlement if they were transferred the legal title. You see, there is not entitlement to register an equitable title at the land register. If the transfer was merely an equitable sale, the SPV would not be entitled to register its interest at the land registery. There is no a shadow of doubt in my mind that at law, the sale to the SPV was a sale of the legal title.

 

The reason why this is important as a potential defence against repossession is because the bank relies on its unlawful entry as the registered proprietor when the bank knows that it has sold its legal rights and title to another. The bank knows that it has suppressed and concealed the SPV from being registered at the Land Registry contrary to the LRA 2002 s.27 and s.123 and knows that the Land Register is incorrect. S.123 is a criminal offence and a claimant cannot rely on its criminal and unlawful conduct (its registration at LR) to found its claim against you. It is called the illegality defence and more commonly known in the legal world in its latin tag as ex turpi causa.

 

So then you think that the SPV will come clean and comply with s.27 like has recently been seen in the House of Lords Walker case. Well no, the SPV's don't want to come forward wholesale to correct and accurately reflect the SPVs as the real legal owners. The reason they don't want to register are many but two will suffice to demonstrate - firstly, they don't want have to comply with FSA or OFT regulations (I know the banks don't anyway) and more importantly, their tax structure. If they registered, as s.27 says they must, then they couldn't pretend to be equitable owners (which they are not as evident from the Walker case), and they would not be able to engage in their tax evasion structure.

 

So it does matter. You do have a defence against your bank because your bank does not own the legal rights under your contract and has no legal right to bring litigation against you. It has no legal right to possess your home and no legal right to ask the court to give them an order for possession of your home. The bank must rely on the Land Register and its commission of a criminal offence rendering that register inaccurate and incomplete and in accordance with the ex turpi causa defence, the court 'cannot and will not assist a claimant that must rely on its own illegality to ground its cause of action'

 

There are two House of Lords cases that support the contentions herein: first there is Westdeutsche Girozentral v Islington, 1996 for the propostion that the Bank is not the trustee of the SPV see the sections headed "retention of title" and "separation of title" and Moore Stephens v Stone Rolls 2009 (or maybe 2008) which sets out the ex causa turpi doctrine.

 

Tifo, your contract is not with the bank - the bank sold its legal title under your contract to the SPV. That legal title has attached to the SPV and therefore your bank cannot at law (if the law is upheld) lay any claim against you. You will notice that in Mr J Strap's posts he talks about "perfection". Well once a legal title has ATTAHCED to the SPV as it has, the SPV should PERFECT its title. Pefection is achieved by registering at the Land Registry...and LRA s.27 mandates that an assignee MUST PERFECT ITS ATTACHED LEGAL TITLE by registering. It is the wilful non-compliance with s.27 together with the commission of a s.123 crime and the gross criminal abuse of the registration gap that lets these criminal banks get away with their extortions. The law is not being upheld against these criminals and so, they continue to get away with their criminal activity.

 

There are more reasons why the SPV's are grossly detrimental to consumers as the legal owners of their mortgage contract - particularly in the excessive administration costs of the securitisation structure which the consumer pays for - through the bloody nose! But this reply is long enough as it is for the moment and that could be another topic.

 

Good luck to you all against these criminals...

Supersleuth

Edited June 1, 2010 by supersleuth

[IS IT ME?]

Hi Kegi,

well the trolls are at it again,

I would ask you to look at one companies accounts RFC when they started up, having a debt of some £700K but was able to 'buy ' a mortgage book od some £125Million, yes this is not a typo but a fact!

They lent to people who before rates went shy high and could 'pay' as you say but then could not and though no fault of their own had to pay sum £8k to £15K in ERC charges, this they put own as there losses? why can you as you A) are a banker in this field or B) or a lawyer in this field and know fully what is going on.

And as SS stated if they was nothing wrong in there paperwork why not let this documents come out in court? not even judges are able to see them!

So as the saying goes 'put up or shut up'!!!!!!

 

TIFO:

remember what you write then the rates go up and up as they will, as the bank have lost millions and they only people they are going to get it back though is US!

[newstarter]

Thanks Supersleuth i will have good read of that thread.

[patrickq1]

If, from the plaintiff's own standing or otherwise, the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa, or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the court says he has no right to be assisted. It is upon that ground the court goes; not for the sake of the defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff. So if the plaintiff and defendant were to change sides, and the defendant was to bring his action against the plaintiff, the latter would then have the advantage of it; for where both were equally in fault, potior est conditio defendentis.

[supersleuth]

Thanks Patrickq1,

 

That is indeed the ex turpi causa defence. Of course, in the context of lenders and borrowers, the borrowers are totally innocent of any wrongdoing under the LRA 2002. The transgression of a positive law (i.e. s.27) and the criminal act of the lenders (s.123) are exclusively the transgressions of the banks and the SPVs.

 

The Stephen Moore v Stone Rolls House of Lords case expands on how the defence is applied here. Of course, the courts will probably enter into the usual liguistic acrobats to avoid holding the banks to abide by the law in this country, but nonetheless we should put them through the pain of doing so because, there may just be one judge out their who does abide by his/her judicial oath and does uphold the rule of law who dismisses the banks claims against the borrower.

 

Supersleuth

[tifo]

there may just be one judge out their who does abide by his/her judicial oath and does uphold the rule of law

 

i'm sure there's plenty but its a judge lottery who you get.

[Suetonius]

my two cents

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2957643.html

 

I promise that this will be my last post on the topic of securitisation and more importantly the title to sue debate. Recent events have been a real eye opener and made me seriously think about certain things.

 

So enjoy and best of luck to one and all

[newstarter]

Hi to the caggers on this thread.I have been following this discussion for a short time,however i feel i have to side with supersleuth,Actionsnotwords,and co and heres why.Whilst i cannot use the legal jargon you caggers use,when i read about sub prime lenders using every trick in the book to generate false arrears on borrowers acounts,using repossession as a first not last resort,i have to think there must be a reason why.Dont forget people this is about borrowers,for example getting an eviction notice for say next Wednesday for sometimes less than 1k of arrears with another 2 k added on in charges,lenders must be doing this to activley repossess their homes,what other reason could there be for doing it.? Sorry to bring this debate down to my level,but its about real people, wondering wether they are going to have a roof over their heads or not.I have been in that position,a sub prime lender screwing me for every penny and more,then still try to repossess,i won in court but so many others have lost their homes because of ignorance of the banking system,together with the legal system.Somethings been going off and if i can see it why not everyone else.Well done Supersleuth and co,i shall read on with intrest.

[supersleuth]

Hi to the caggers on this thread.I have been following this discussion for a short time,however i feel i have to side with supersleuth,Actionsnotwords,and co and heres why.Whilst i cannot use the legal jargon you caggers use,when i read about sub prime lenders using every trick in the book to generate false arrears on borrowers acounts,using repossession as a first not last resort,i have to think there must be a reason why.Dont forget people this is about borrowers,for example getting an eviction notice for say next Wednesday for sometimes less than 1k of arrears with another 2 k added on in charges,lenders must be doing this to activley repossess their homes,what other reason could there be for doing it.? Sorry to bring this debate down to my level,but its about real people, wondering wether they are going to have a roof over their heads or not.I have been in that position,a sub prime lender screwing me for every penny and more,then still try to repossess,i won in court but so many others have lost their homes because of ignorance of the banking system,together with the legal system.Somethings been going off and if i can see it why not everyone else.Well done Supersleuth and co,i shall read on with intrest.

 

You've got it in one. Repossession is far more profitable than lending to the customer for 25 years. That's why they force people into arrears. Firstly they charge interest at rates they know is untenable for the borrower to sustain. They know how to force the borrower into arrears because they know exactly the fixed income that the borrower declared on their application. Secondly, they know that once they've tripped the borrower up on its first missed payment - from there they can add all the extortionate fees that are really profitable. If you manage to re-mortgage, then they can stuff you for an ERC in the tens of thousands. So it's good business for them to force you into "alleged" arrears. But then the next mortgage company will soon have you in the same boat a few years down the line anyway, plus they've also screw you for all the extensive costs in remortgaging as well. Maximised profits. Why should they lend for 25 years? It's much more profitable to force you into arrears.

 

If you haven't been able to remortgage, the next profit centre is just as lucrative - taking your home. Then they can steal all the equity from your home. And, even after taking all your equity, there's more. Fees, fees and more fees for the sale of your property and then they get to have you in their clutches for the contrived "shortfall", all of which attracts compound interest.

 

So then they leave you alone for a few years while you financially recover and then, once you recover, they miraculously appear. With their compounded interest on the alleged shortfall over say 6 or 12 years and they get to hound you for another small fortune. Read the many threads on this topic regarding repossessions that took place in the 1990's.

 

Oh boy, it's soooo much more profitable to repossess than it is to let the borrower have the loan for 25 years. You will never be allowed to get out of their clutches even after they've taken everything you've got. Until our blind, deaf and dumb moron judges understand the abuse and frauds perpetrated on the back of their "rights" over a mortgaged person, Bankruptcy or Death is the only way out.

 

Opps, even your death may not be the way out because then these shysters will hound your family. They have no scruples they just want ALL YOU MONEY - THAT IS EACH AND EVERY PENNY YOU EVER GET - FOREVER AND EVER!

Edited June 5, 2010 by supersleuth

[tifo]

If you haven't been able to remortgage, the next profit centre is just as lucrative - taking your home. Then they can steal all the equity from your home. And, even after taking all your equity, there's more. Fees, fees and more fees for the sale of your property and then they get to have you in their clutches for the contrived "shortfall", all of which attracts compound interest.

 

They don't take your equity. The amount they get for selling the house first goes to all the charge holders and anything left over is given to the borrower, minus fees etc.

 

Your scenario only comes about when they have negative equity.

[tbern123]

In addition to not being Caro or Andrew1, I am also not tifo...

 

Just wanted to make that clear before I am accused....

 

No offence Tifo, it is just if anyone says anything similar to me, it is suggested it is me using a different username...

[supersleuth]

They don't take your equity. The amount they get for selling the house first goes to all the charge holders and anything left over is given to the borrower, minus fees etc.

 

Your scenario only comes about when they have negative equity.

 

Read the many threads of people who have had their homes repossessed.

 

You may find that in most cases, as you rightly observe, it is the "minus fees" that is the problem. The borrower's equity is swallowed up in paying the many, many fees and costs levied on the borrower for the sale. Thus, most people's equity is swallowed up with these fees and in a lot of cases, those fees push the account to an alleged shortfall. Hence it is not only those borrowers who are in negative equity that suffer from this extortion, it is the many borrowers who do have equity in their homes.

 

Again, read the many threads where repossessed people testify to this fact.

 

BTW - another method of stealing people's equity is evident in the Horsham Properties v Heath case. Where the mortgagee sells the property cheap to a company at undervalue and then that purchaser sells on at a profit. There is no end to the strategies these people employ to steal your wealth.

Edited June 5, 2010 by supersleuth

[supersleuth]

In addition to not being Caro or Andrew1, I am also not tifo...

 

Just wanted to make that clear before I am accused....

 

No offence Tifo, it is just if anyone says anything similar to me, it is suggested it is me using a different username...

 

tbern123 - I don't need you to keep asserting who you are not. In fact, I don't care who you are either. Hence, you don't need to keep posting your assertions as to who you are not. Your identity is boring and irrelevant to the discussion.

[IS IT ME?]

Suetonius,

Well why leave now, or are you still here????? but under another lol.

Please the (long) and thankful post you did I have printed off and given it to some one to read though and there are errors in the defence of this and will write up later.

[tbern123]

tbern123 - I don't need you to keep asserting who you are not. In fact, I don't care who you are either. Hence, you don't need to keep posting your assertions as to who you are not. Your identity is boring and irrelevant to the discussion.

 

I do sense a certain animosity towards me in your posts since your return. There is no real need is there Superslueth,

 

You believe in one argument and post what you think is the correct postion, Where as, I believe in a different argument and post what I think is the correct postion (with supporting evidence).

 

Suetonius,

Well why leave now, or are you still here????? but under another lol.

Please the (long) and thankful post you did I have printed off and given it to some one to read though and there are errors in the defence of this and will write up later.

 

Hello again IS IT ME? you appear to be someone else that has a fixation with Suetonius. I left because it was a sunny Saturday and I went to a bbq.

 

I look forward to you writing up later, the errors in my "long and thankful" post. I trust that any arguments will be supported by crediable supporting evidence and not just personal opinions and interpretations. Personally, I can't wait for you to tell me how and why Halbury's, a cambridge professor, those authors and the other sources I have quoted directly got it wrong. After all that post is mainly direct quotes from crediable 3rd party sources rather my own personal opinion or interpretation...

 

I am going to have to disappoint you again though. I will not be unhappy, angry or have any negative feelings if I am proved wrong. In fact I would go so far as to say that I would be more than happy to be proved wrong. To a degree that is the point...

Edited June 5, 2010 by tbern123

[tifo]

I am also not tifo...

 

... and i am no-one else but me.

[tbern123]

Suetonius,

Well why leave now, or are you still here????? but under another lol.

Please the (long) and thankful post you did I have printed off and given it to some one to read though and there are errors in the defence of this and will write up later.

 

Could you also ask this some one to take a look at these books too, as these should be added to the other sources previously provided...

 

Hello Tifo

 

As confirmation of the above, read from (bottom of page 21 and continued on page 22 & 23 ) 2.19 Assignments and 2.20 Title Perfection Events

 

Securitisation Law & Practice in the Face of the Credit Crunch

 

This relates to commercial mortgage loan securitisation but further confirmation of equitable assignment (page 400) True Sale Transactions

 

The handbook of European fixed income securities

 

By Frank J. Fabozzi, Moorad Choudhry

 

Also with regard to s.136 of the LOP & securitisation

 

The Law of Corporate Finance ... - Google Books

 

Under English law.......

 

This one applies to Australia but I am sure you will get the point

 

Salomon Smith Barney guide to mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities

 

Much obliged, thank you IS IT ME?

[Gallahad]

i AM spartacus:confused:

[supersleuth]

i AM spartacus:confused:

 

Hey Gallahad, great post - you're so funny:p

[tbern123]

Suetonius,

Well why leave now, or are you still here????? but under another lol.

Please the (long) and thankful post you did I have printed off and given it to some one to read though and there are errors in the defence of this and will write up later.

 

Any update on this IS IT ME?

 

Please excuse my impatience, as you might know in the past we have been promised everything from an opinion of a Barrister to a report from a Forensic Auditor and nothing ever comes of it.

 

I will amend the long post, when I have the opportunity later to include the new books, I have come across which further confirm the equitable sale by the mortgage provider and the subsequent equitable ownership by the SPV.

[tbern123]

Any news IS IT ME?

[tbern123]