Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

[applecart]

Again, The Law Commission's said working paper...at para 2.12 looks at distinguishing a mortgage from a charge:

 

"A mortgage is conceptually different from a charge:-

 

A mortgage involves some degree of transfer of the mortgaged property to the mortgagee, with a provision for re-transfer on repayment of the loan, whereas a charge merely gives the chargee a right of recourse to the charged property as security for the loan"

 

Apple

[applecart]

ooooohhhh and look what The Law Commission said about 'possession at para 616 of the said working paper:

 

"One of the consequences of the relationship created by demise and by charge by way of legal mortgage is that it is the mortgagee and not the mortgagor who is entitled to possession of the property.

 

Unless the mortgage deed expressly restricts the exercise of the right it is exercisable at any time and for any (or no ) reason; it's exercise is not dependant on any default by the mortgagor, nor on any threat to the security.

 

If the mortgagee prefers to obtain a court order for possession rather than obtain possession extra judicailly, the court has power, if the property is a dwelling house, to withhold or delay the order on condition that the mortgagor remedies the default, otherwise the court has no power to regulate the exercise of the right; it is a matter in which equity has consistently refused to intervene.

 

Consultation confirmed the view expressed in the working paper that this right is neither needed nor wanted by mortgagees and that its continued existence is an unnecessary complication in the law.

 

In practice reputable mortgagees treat the right as a remedy, exercising it only when necessary for the protection or enforcement of the security.

 

We recommend that the law should reflect this practice, and that it should be an overriding provision of a formal and an informal mortgage that the mortgagor is entitled to possession of the mortgaged property, with the mortgagee being entitled to take possession only in specified circumstances for the protection or enforcement of the security"

 

Apple

[applecart]

at para 6.22...

 

"Over the last few years a secondary mortgage market has developed in this country and wholesale dealings in mortgage assets are now relatively widespread..."

 

at Para 6.27

 

"Our conclusion is that the situation ought to be closely monitored and consideration should now be given to whether there are effective alternatives to legislation as a means of dealing with this problem. If there is not, and it becomes apparent that a serious practical problem is emerging, we recommend, if the problem is such that transfers should be controlled, that legislation implementing the recommendation we make in the following two paragraphs should be enacted....."

 

I think its fair to surmise, that the problem emerged and is a serious problem, borrowers losing homes for minimal arrears or non at all where some of the more unscrupulous sub-prime lenders are adding charges on non existent charges .....normally occurs when libor increases and you do not adjust your payments to take into account the difference in cost immediately...they will charge interest and a charge from there...

 

It would appear that since the Law Commission spotted the emerging problem; the legislator has taken timely steps (albeit without a borrowers knowledge) to address and control the epidemic (I suppose the recession was inevitable then.....)

 

First there was the amendments to the LRA in 2002; then subsequently the RRO 2005....legislative redress for borrowers to stave off aggressive possession claims.....

 

Now, instead of dealing with the Adjudicator of HMLR...there appears to be a more 'independent' resolve via the Propery Chamber.....

 

We've yet to have a publicly available result...but, it can't be said that since March 2013...when we clocked on to the issue to do with the Deeds, that as Caggers...we have not been quick to slap the issue before the judiciary....We wait to see their public response...

 

Apple

[IS IT ME?]

well apple, I am gald to see you are still on form and had a reply from the lender and will send it via site team if I can.

[applecart]

well apple, I am gald to see you are still on form and had a reply from the lender and will send it via site team if I can.

 

Hi Is It Me,

 

No problem : )

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

Is It Me/Apple

 

In the spirit of open information promoted in this thread are you able to publish the lender's reply or at least sections (if any) relevant to this thread? Any insights gained may prove useful to progress other inquiries. I have ceased 'regular' payments for three months and have presented themes prevalent in this thread and NRAM have gone silent aside from an expired 20 day notice from the CEO to 'investigate my concerns'.

Edited August 8, 2013 by UNRAM

[IS IT ME?]

Hi apple here is the witness statement made to day, with again no evidence to back it up also the statement claims the deed is not void and that is all???

 

 

This is part of the witness statement

 

I understand that the court ordered an officer of the claimant company to provide a witness statement in response to the defendants statement and in particular to deal with the mortgages sale agreement and the suggestion that the legal and beneficial interest in a portfolio of the claimants mortgages were transferred to Brass No1 plc.

 

I believe that I am the most appropriate person to provide a witness statement in respect of the transactions between the claimant and Brass because I have first hand knowledge of them. I confirm that my department has detailed knowledge of these types of transactions.

 

He then confirms once again that the sale took place.

 

In the statement of Ms Ineson correctly explains that the transaction involved only the transfer of the beneficial interest ( and not the legal interest) in a portfolio of mortgages from the claimant to Brass I refer the court to an extract of the advice provide by Allen & Overy Llp the claimants legal advisers for the transaction set out in par 20 of the witness statement and confirm that this reflects my understanding of the transaction.

 

A full review of the transactions between the claimant and Brass has been completed and I confirm that the property did not form part of the transaction and at all times the legal and beneficial interest in the mortgage remained with the claimant.

[applecart]

Hi Is It Me.... apologies for the length of this post mate.....but,...

 

Can I simply start by stating that ‘Allen & Overy llp’ are not the ‘Director’ of the lending Company…neither is the ‘appropriate person’….whilst there is an ‘extract’ submitted by A & O and whilst it may be persuasive, …. …. I’m sorry,….it remains the case that their submitted ‘extract’ regrettably is not attached or contained within a witness statement of a ‘Director’ from the lending company as required by the order of the court… it is contained within a witness statement of someone who considers him/herself to be the ‘most appropriate person’…..

 

It would be a first that in your friends case….everyone else’s mortgage except your friends just so happens to have been sold …ha,ha,ha…….yeah right!!!

 

Take note of the word that the 'appropriate person' chooses to use here; he/she says ‘the “property” did not form part of the transaction’ ….this is a clever use and play on words….imo (because your friend still resides in the physical property, they intend to convince the judge that the property cannot be considered to have been party to the sale of the beneficial interest …. Which it won’t of been… well… at least not the physical property that is…..)

 

Take on board though……when a lender exercises the power of sale… he does so, because when you signed the deed as an approved form of charge….. your friend will have signed it with the express terms contained to say that your friend charged the “property” ‘with full title guarantee’ and ‘by way of legal mortgage’…

 

Take on board also, that on sight of the title register and the deed in those terms ....almost all Judges will rely that you intended to dispose of your legal estate…(even though you would think that Judges should be aware of the effect of the RRO by now.....and the LRA s.23)

 

Non the less, it would appear that you will need to point out to the Judge that the LRA section 23 removed any power of your friend that would lead him/her to create any type of disposition that would mean that the lender was enabled to enter into possession of the legal estate (mortgages by demise etc) ..... explain that your friend by virtue of LRA s. 23 only had power to create dispositions that would merely secure the loan…..a mortgage by demise was considered all together an inappropriate and unnecessary means of doing so (see the working paper of the Law commission for a better understanding posted) ……… the disposition of your friends entire legal rights to the estate was not the intent of the legislator when he expressly repealed any power of a borrower to ‘deliver’ a deed or when he inserted the LPA 1925 section 74A to put the onus of delivery squarely at the foot of the Lender…. so that the previously irrebuttal presumption of delivery was totally repealed by article 5 of the RRO 2005 unless the lender had executed the deed in compliance in your friends case with LPA 1925 section 74A …..all of which and more are protective remedies within the provision of the substantiating law of the RRO 2005. .to help your friend stave off the claim for possession of his/her home.

 

Against this – do not lose sight of the fact that once the charge deed was taken to be presumed to be ‘executed’ and ‘delivered’ by your friend and registered by HMLR….instead of HMLR charging your friend estate with a charge that was to secure indebtedness… they have given legal effect to a charge of your friends entire legal estate…. Outside the legal ambit of the LRA section 23……thus putting your friend in the detrimental position of one who may be seen to have done so by intent…….however …. It is the Law that protects your friend……for the Law clearly states that your friend had no such power to create a mortgage by demise…. So that when HMLR have no doubt caused what is an invalid ‘charging clause’ to come into effect against your friends legal estate……eeerrrrm,,, as protected by LAW……the deed is apt to be set aside….due to the charge having been caused by way of a mistake in an official copy of the approved charge document (that goes for their purported ‘valid charge clauses’ found in their CH1 forms also) pursuant to LRA 2002 Schedule 8 (1) (d)that has since the LRA s.23…..had no legal basis.

 

As a reminder …. ….. the words ‘charge by legal mortgage’ mean that when the charge was registered……the ‘mortgage by demise’….enabled the lender to be in automatic possession of your friends legal estate…….which meant the lender had power (more power than even your friend was legally allowed to grant by the way) to enter into the legal estate – that legal estate gave him the powers of a lender of olden times …i.e pre LRA 2002…. Essentially what that means is the lender secured the legal estate…. entered into possession…….from there he exercised the power of sale extra judicially ……and sold off the ‘beneficial interest’ and kept the ‘legal interest’……i.e the registered charge showing at HMLR…..as ‘trustee’ for the SPV…. In doing so, the lender is the one who has the ‘purported’ legal right to claim possession of your friend’s home.

 

First off, you need to stick to your guns, don’t let up off the fact that the deed is void

 

Secondly, don’t accept the ‘appropriate persons’ witness statement in place of that which was ordered by the court… which is that it should be a witness statement from a Director.

 

What you need to do is: ‘Thank’ the ‘most appropriate person’ for his/her interest but take the opportunity to point them to the order of the court….and to advise that the statement of ‘the most appropriate person may in different circumstances be considered persuasive. However in these current circumstances the order of the court was not intended to be circumvented by ‘the most appropriate person’ … no matter how persuasive the witness statement may appear to be on it’s fact…. it is with respect that you feel inclined to remind them as to terms of the courts order, which was that the witness statement must be submitted by a ‘Director’ of the company on the understanding, that the ‘appropriate persons’ duty of care is not reminiscent of that of a ‘Director’ and that both you and the court require the clarity that only a witness statement from a ‘Director’ would provide.

 

(for crying out loud…which part of the order of the court don’t they understand???...non the less the genteel art of diplomacy is always best served ‘cold’)

 

Then please remind yourself…..the deed is void because… a deed that is fine for ‘charging’ purposes is not intended to meet the formalities in the same way that a deed for disposition purposes is used and relied…different legislation applies to the deed of disposition (even if it is the same one used by the lender for charging purposes)

 

The registered charges are apt to be removed from the title register if the finding is that the deed is void due to lack of execution and thus delivery by the lender…

 

The lender cannot avoid the fact that they did not execute the deed….neither the lender nor the court can rely on a presumption of delivery in your friend’s signature alone….so long as you make it known that your intent is for either the court to consider the validity of the deed with a view to setting it aside or allow time for the property chamber to come back to your friend with a decision – such decision subject to being appealed in the event it goes against your friend on terms that we know to be legally unjust.

 

This was never going to be an easy ride Is It Me……

 

They are already trying to jump through hoops to avoid the inevitable…after all it cannot be ignored that they have a lot riding on the outcome of your friends case…….

 

It is an idea to write to the court to advice that you have had a copy of the witness statement from a person advising that he/she is an ‘appropriate person’

…and to send the court a copy of the letter that you send to the Lender… when and if you do…make sure it arrives at least 7 days before you are due back in court.

 

It may be wise to also remind the court and the lender that you await the outcome of your friends application to the Property Chamber as to the validity of the deed relied upon to confer the purported legal interest of which the lender relies upon for possession of your friends home… for it’s effect as a deed that was intended to create a valid disposition in compliance with LPA 1925 section 52 (1) to determine if the lender did in fact derive any legal interest of which it had a right to sell a beneficial interest whether the ‘appropriate person’ chooses to admit so or not….

 

Remember, you have advised the property chamber that you had no power to convey a legal interest, so if it is said that the deed is valid…which it simply cannot be given that your friend had no power to charge the estate by way of legal mortgage……

 

Incidentally, has this officer who is the ‘most appropriate person’ submitted a list of the “properties” that were party to the transaction then??...(or should I say the mortgage account numbers…) so that your friend can check for himself that his mortgage account number is not on the list….

 

I know this is a long post , so if any of it needs clarifying... please do not try to interpret what I am say alone....ask me - I will explain further....ok?

 

Apple

[applecart]

Is It Me/Apple

 

In the spirit of open information promoted in this thread are you able to publish the lender's reply or at least sections (if any) relevant to this thread? Any insights gained may prove useful to progress other inquiries. I have ceased 'regular' payments for three months and have presented themes prevalent in this thread and NRAM have gone silent aside from an expired 20 day notice from the CEO to 'investigate my concerns'.

 

Hi Unram

 

Any news as to what happened with UNRAM 2??

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

Hi Unram

 

Any news as to what happened with UNRAM 2??

 

Apple

 

Court review moved to end of the month. My guess is that NRAM need a little more time. I will be sure to offer assistance with preparations nearer the time.

[Winged Piglet]

Hi Is It Me, Apple

 

Just a thought and I'm sure you've already looked at this, but the Mortgage Sale Agreement you posted is four pages long, this one is more detailed and contains at the very back a list of accounts NOT included in the sale. Is your friends mortgage one of these?

 

See Page 82 Exempt Loans with list of Account Numbers

 

http://www.ybs.co.uk/your-society/treasury/documents/transaction-documents/Mortgage-Sale_Agreem.PDF

 

Clearly they were looking to include these but for some reason didn't, as otherwise why mention?

 

My gut feeling is that perhaps they did not sell your friend's mortgage as it may have been identified under due diligence as being faulty i.e. Mortgage Offer for address of another completely different property i.e. not the mortgaged one is imo a huge fault, so couldn't sell as Deed and Mortgage Offer don't match!

 

This is maybe why they are skirting around the issue as admittance of not selling it, is admittance of highlighting the fault?

 

What has been made by the Judge of the fact that the underlying loan agreement for your friend's property doesn't exist only one for another like you said that they were going to buy and has no relevance to this whatsoever as should have been discarded.

 

So does Lender know the loan is unenforceable? as no valid mortgage offer/loan agreement but going for fast posession before friend can react on back of the only thing they hold, the Deed.

 

With all the packagers and intermediaries/volume of loans etc there's always going to be faults and mistakes that's for sure, but the lender has completed and wasn't looking to keep these on their books, so maybe wants rid fast hence quick posession.

 

Notwithstanding that YOU know that actually the Deed is also faulty for a variety of reasons outlined in this thread etc even if the Lender doesn't realise it yet lol!

 

Apologies if not read thread correctly and you know about the list of mortgages not included but thought worth pointing out and chipping in

 

(if it's not listed as an Exempt account, could you in the alternative demand a copy of the CD rom they mention at the back of this MSA as a way of conveying the actual list of borrowers/accounts etc as evidence that it was contained?

 

Regards

WP

[IS IT ME?]

Apple thanks once again, I am looking into the points you raised and will get back to you later if I may.

Yes this is once again NOT what was asked for by the judge and you may also ask why

 

WP, you will see that there is NO list of address for the sale as the whole lot was sold every last one.

They and I both know they are up the creek but I will come back to that later today.

[applecart]

Court review moved to end of the month. My guess is that NRAM need a little more time. I will be sure to offer assistance with preparations nearer the time.

 

Brilliant, Thanks Unram : )

 

If you think that we can be of any assistance, just shout up.......

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Is It Me, Apple

 

Just a thought and I'm sure you've already looked at this, but the Mortgage Sale Agreement you posted is four pages long, this one is more detailed and contains at the very back a list of accounts NOT included in the sale. Is your friends mortgage one of these?

 

See Page 82 Exempt Loans with list of Account Numbers

 

http://www.ybs.co.uk/your-society/treasury/documents/transaction-documents/Mortgage-Sale_Agreem.PDF

 

Clearly they were looking to include these but for some reason didn't, as otherwise why mention?

 

My gut feeling is that perhaps they did not sell your friend's mortgage as it may have been identified under due diligence as being faulty i.e. Mortgage Offer for address of another completely different property i.e. not the mortgaged one is imo a huge fault, so couldn't sell as Deed and Mortgage Offer don't match!

 

This is maybe why they are skirting around the issue as admittance of not selling it, is admittance of highlighting the fault?

 

What has been made by the Judge of the fact that the underlying loan agreement for your friend's property doesn't exist only one for another like you said that they were going to buy and has no relevance to this whatsoever as should have been discarded.

 

So does Lender know the loan is unenforceable? as no valid mortgage offer/loan agreement but going for fast posession before friend can react on back of the only thing they hold, the Deed.

 

With all the packagers and intermediaries/volume of loans etc there's always going to be faults and mistakes that's for sure, but the lender has completed and wasn't looking to keep these on their books, so maybe wants rid fast hence quick posession.

 

Notwithstanding that YOU know that actually the Deed is also faulty for a variety of reasons outlined in this thread etc even if the Lender doesn't realise it yet lol!

 

Apologies if not read thread correctly and you know about the list of mortgages not included but thought worth pointing out and chipping in

 

(if it's not listed as an Exempt account, could you in the alternative demand a copy of the CD rom they mention at the back of this MSA as a way of conveying the actual list of borrowers/accounts etc as evidence that it was contained?

 

Regards

WP

 

Hi WP

 

Thanks for posting this up...

 

I noticed that in addition to the 'exempt' loans....At Page 75 there is detail of all the 'approved' Mortgage Deeds - ....

 

The Mortgage Deed 'MD' Numbers are:

 

All Deeds/loans under the approved form of charge:

 

MD740D from/for 2004

MD740F from/for 2006

MD740G from/for 2007

MD740E from/for 2005

MD740H from/for 2007

MD740C from/for 2004

 

I think if you have an 'official copy' of the deed it will show the 'MD' number...if it matches anyone of the above for the year in which your mortgage was taken out...then, it is/was definitely party to the sale in 2011....(remember, these sub-prime lenders do 'sell' over and over and over..and re-package, the same loans over and over and over.....The Markets have forced more 'transparency'.. so these 'MD' numbers are a great way of identifying what's gone on)

 

I wonder if the 'appropriate person' meant he had checked the 'exempt list'....or the MD numbers???

 

It would be highly unlucky if they could prove that Is It Me's friends loan was one of those 'exempt' loans......even so, it is like you say...it would not matter....the deed is void regardless : )

 

I noticed also that there sale particulars lord over the fact that they have 'secured' 'charges by way of legal mortgage'.....oh, well....that too is all about to change hey : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

Apple thanks once again, I am looking into the points you raised and will get back to you later if I may.

Yes this is once again NOT what was asked for by the judge and you may also ask why

 

WP, you will see that there is NO list of address for the sale as the whole lot was sold every last one.

They and I both know they are up the creek but I will come back to that later today.

 

Hi Is It Me

 

Check off the 'MD' number on your friends official copy of his/her deed...do any of the 'MD' numbers match the number on your friends deed mate?...I gather from what you say your friends loan was not one of those 'exempt' loans referred to...

 

I also noticed that all the sales include mortgages that were entered into between 2004 to 2007.... all of which came after the 2002 LRA at least.

 

It is a fact the executed MSA is confirmation in itself that the legal and 'beneficial interest' has been sold....(Trustee Delegation Act 1999 - section 10....speaks of the removal of the so called 'technicality' of separating legal and beneficial/equitable interests...no such thing) they hold the 'property' as 'trust property' under a 'bare' legal title.....but that's a whole different can of worms....

 

Fact is ...... in truth...they hold nothing...the underlying deed is void...HMLR have registered a deed that has illegal terms included...terms may be possibly 'amended'....but that will not cause the deed to all of a sudden become valid....can't circumvent the law (Garguillo)

 

The 'appropriate person' should withdraw his/her witness statement....might get a wee bit embarrassing : )

 

Apple

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Is It Me...

 

Your 'guest' count is mounting....

 

Have you considered changing the name of the thread to something like 'Sub-Prime Lenders 'Mortgage Deeds Are Void'...

 

This thread is of interest to all those with a mortgage...they need to see what's going on...rather than just stumbling across your thread - what do you think??

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

Court review moved to end of the month. My guess is that NRAM need a little more time. I will be sure to offer assistance with preparations nearer the time.

 

I have communicated with UNRAM 2 today and we are making suitable preparations.

[applecart]

I have communicated with UNRAM 2 today and we are making suitable preparations.

 

That's good to know....if there is anything that we can do to assist ...as always - just shout ...

 

Hopefully, that which I am continuing to post is sinking in...and assists you both in any event : )

 

I haven't had chance to dig deeper into NRAM as yet...but, hopefully someone will come forward with more detail on that for you both...

 

Apple

[UNRAM]

Great. In the meantime I would like to find out more about securitisation of my mortgage. I have an MD number on the deed. Where do I go from here? Not seeking for someone to do it (though it would be good if anyone knows how) but something to get me started will be appreciated. I realise that statutory compliance asserted in this thread is not dependent upon securitisation and wont get side-tracked (because of this) but I would very much like to present all material facts if I am able...

 

I found this from 2007: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2815859/Why-Northern-Rock-was-doomed-to-fail.html

Edited August 9, 2013 by UNRAM

[applecart]

Hi UNRAM

 

It was fortunate that the MD numbers were shown in the particular Mortgage Sale Agreement posted by WP...I suspect earlier 'securitised' mortgage sale documents will not be so transparent..... I also suspect that given that the securitised markets are more 'transparent'...I suspect that you should be able to rely that a sale that occurred in recent years will show detail similar to that shown on the one posted by WP.

 

If you google 'Irish Stock Exchange'....you can look up 'mortgage backed securities' to see if your lender's SPV is listed there....

 

Sometimes, you can simply google the SPV's name and come up with documentation that is publicly available on line....

 

You may be fortunate and find in the appendix a MD that matches yours...

 

I'll make an effort to see what I can find for you...

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi UNRAM

 

found this: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/summary/company-summary.html?fourWayKey=XS0168666526ZZGBPMISL

 

Don't quote me on this ...but, it looks like given that Northern Rock were not considered 'sub-prime'...Grantie Mortgages trade on the London Stock Exchange...

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi UNRAM

 

You are going to be busy this afternoon....here is some other info that I have found for you....I think it's relevant (if not, let me know and I will dig around again....)

 

This makes for useful reading to increase your ‘background’ knowledge

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granite_(Northern_Rock_vehicle)

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-1620633/Granite-Northern-Rocks-money-making-vehicle.html

 

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/blogs/securitisation-hopes-crumble-with-granite/176899.article

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/mar/22/northern-rock-returns-securitisation-market

 

In 2011, Northern rock re-entered the securitised market – but instead of using Granite Mortgages as the SPV… it is said to now be : ‘Gosforth Funding 2011-1’ 2 years ago……

 

This link…. I think helps bring you up to date with what’s going on with your mortgage held with NRAM……

 

 

http://uk.virginmoney.com/virgin/investor-relations/securitisation/mortgages.jsp

 

In particular … this link: http://uk.virginmoney.com/virgin/investor-relations/2012/2/Mortgage_Sale_Agreement.pdf takes you to the Mortgage Sale Agreement that denotes all the ‘MD’ numbers party to the sale at Page 54

 

Hope this helps?

 

Apple

[bhall]

Hopefully, Is It Me? will accept this post as it is intended by me, as a helpful post about assertions made in relation to s.23 of the LRA 2002. If Is It Me? is unable to accept the post as intended, please let me know and I will delete the content.

 

Post deleted as per above

Edited August 9, 2013 by bhall

[UNRAM]

As per my previous post -

 

The deed itself confirms that it grants a charge by way of legal mortgage or to give it, its full name "a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage". The mortgage deed does not state or imply that it grants a mortgage by demise or a mortgage by sub-demise.

 

 

If I am understanding applecart's earlier posts it is that granting a deed creates a mortgage by demise - an equitable mortgage - that ceases existence at the point of registration with the creation of a legal mortgage. The intention of the deed is never fulfilled.

 

Is that correct?

 

If not who does own the property between granting and registration if a mortgage by demise does not exist at that point?

[UNRAM]

Apple

 

Please can you summarise again why you consider that a mortgage by demise is created. I have looked up templates and wording of mortgages by demise and they don't look anything like my mortgage deed charging the property by way of a legal mortgage and made with full title guarantee. What, in layman's terms, makes a deed for a legal mortgage into a mortgage by demise. I know you have been here already but I am sure to be not alone in wanting to understand the process a bit better.

Edited August 9, 2013 by UNRAM