Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Comments On Trust & REMICS

    Uploaded by

    dbush2778
    13 views1 page
    The document discusses casting doubt on whether a trust that is claiming ownership of a mortgage note was properly formed or exists at all. It notes that mortgage foreclosure mills often have issues with the IRS and SEC that they will try to avoid discussing. It recommends introducing doubt about the trust's compliance with its pooling and servicing agreement or tax payments without claiming those issues prove the trust's nonexistence, as that is not the homeowner's concern. The responses agree that the homeowner needs only allege issues with the trust's formation or existence to shift the burden of proof to the plaintiff trust.

    Original Description:

    Trust and REMICS

    Original Title

    Comments on Trust & REMICS

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document discusses casting doubt on whether a trust that is claiming ownership of a mortgage note was properly formed or exists at all. It notes that mortgage foreclosure mills often have issues with the IRS and SEC that they will try to avoid discussing. It recommends introducing doubt about the trust's compliance with its pooling and servicing agreement or tax payments without claiming those issues prove the trust's nonexistence, as that is not the homeowner's concern. The responses agree that the homeowner needs only allege issues with the trust's formation or existence to shift the burden of proof to the plaintiff trust.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    13 views1 page

    Comments On Trust & REMICS

    Uploaded by

    dbush2778
    The document discusses casting doubt on whether a trust that is claiming ownership of a mortgage note was properly formed or exists at all. It notes that mortgage foreclosure mills often have issues with the IRS and SEC that they will try to avoid discussing. It recommends introducing doubt about the trust's compliance with its pooling and servicing agreement or tax payments without claiming those issues prove the trust's nonexistence, as that is not the homeowner's concern. The responses agree that the homeowner needs only allege issues with the trust's formation or existence to shift the burden of proof to the plaintiff trust.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Comments on Trust & REMICS 2-6-13 Comment by BooneCountyGirl on February 8, 2013 at 9:13pm e named trustYes I thought it was implied

    - the more doubt you can introduce the better. I should also add that if OC trots out the "whether the trust followed their PSA or Paid taxes correctly is not your business and not relevant to foreclosure" rebuttal, you can say, yes you are right- honor or lack thereof among theives is not my concern. But you are claiming a trust owns my note and yet I have info from govt agencies casting doubt on its very existence.Most FC mills are in way over the head with IRS and SEC info and will not even try to go there...:)

    Comment by House Keeper on February 8, 2013 at 4:13pm TY for this Boonie. Great info. And what Randy said. Make the plantiff prove.

    Comment by Randy on February 8, 2013 at 3:10pm Excellent blog Boonie! Just a small observation....Remember that you don't have to *prove* that the alleged trust is dead or never properly formed. You really need only alledge it and leave the burden of proof on the plaintiff trust. Its absolutely fine for folks to gather and use the documents from the sources you cited and submitting certified copies to the court *can * really help you. My caution is ONLY that folks dont forget that they should generally ALWAYS leave the burden of proof on their opponent and not take it onto themselves. Where it comes to factual allegations and evidence in court: Qui tacet consentire videtur The maxim is "Qui tacet consentire": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented. Thomas More In other words, a failure to argue or object to a statement presented as a "fact" has the same effect as *consenting* that what was stated is TRUE.

    You might also like