The “produce the note” is a catchy phrase for a very complex legal strategy. The production of the original not is not always the key. It is the lack of ownership of the note and the mortgage or deed of trust that is the key and securitized trusts and their agents and nominees (MERS). Since ownership is a key to making a claim, these complications cause a foreclosing party or claiming party in a  bankruptcy to show true and legal ownership.  The problem for them is they just can’t prove ownership!.  To  make it more difficult for them, a securitized trust cannot take ownership of a loan through equity. The Pooling and Servicing Agreement is the only rule of the road for securitized trusts.

Given what we know about the securitization process, I think we already know what’s happened. I have found out that most loans were not properly transferred into the pools. But in the meantime, where do we get the evidence outside of litigation to support this conclusion?

If you are able to verify that the loan is actually in the pool, what does that mean? Not much, especially if it wasn’t properly conveyed. Just because someone says they own something doesn’t mean they have evidence that they own it. Without a clear chain of assignment, a pool’s claim that they own something is just a claim and any foreclosure would be foreclosure fraud. 

SECURITIZATION INVESTIGATION: Is the securitization audit information still relevant if the loan was not properly conveyed?

A mortgage audit is still a powerful tool when developing a legal strategy and every foreclosure defense lawyer should have a relationship with a good auditor/investigator. The bottom line-is that all you as a borrower really need to know about securitization is that it created one big mess. It’s going to take an investigation to uncover evidence to support your lawsuit and you need to get an securitization audit then hire a lawyer to help you.