Operation Restoration!
Home Testimonials Board Contact Us Disclaimer Donate
What is a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (P.S.A.) and how can it be used in Foreclosure Defense?
For more information or help, please fill in the form below.

To get your PSA, click here.

Note:  Securitization litigation is not understood by many judges or lawyers.  Please help to educate by forwarding this website to judges, lawyers, and your database.
Consult the page Restore Team for experts in this area.  Keep in mind, the lawyers are only as strong as the JUDICIAL SYSTEM, which needs education.  Please help us get information to judges!

Securitization: Road to Foreclosure (VIDEO coming soon.)
Accompanying references:
Mortgage and Securitization Report (Lesson PDF) PSA: http://www.secinfo.com/drjtj.v37v.d.htm
Defining Robosigning and Its Practices. PDF
RAN: Retained Attorney Network PDF (closed network of attorneys who handle work for Fannie and Freddie. Servicers are supposed to monitor the activities of the RAN). See:
FHFA-OIG Report on Oversight of Default-Related Services PDF (Federal Housing Finance Agency Office of the Inspector General oversees taxpayer-owned Fannie and Freddie)

Special Warranty Deed PDF (see end of video)
Note: This video is an easy to understand, illustrated lesson which shows what happened with documents signed at closing and subsequent acts leading to wrongful foreclosure. Taught by an auditor/researcher, this lesson is based on an actual case and shows examples of alleged wrongful activities. This lesson is EXCELLENT for lawyers, judges, and the general public. Please distribute to your database, to social media, judges, legislators, lawyers, and media contacts.
The Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) is the contract that actually creates a residential mortgage backed securitized trust and establishes the obligations and authority of the Master Servicer and the Primary Servicer. The PSA is the root of all securitized-based foreclosure action defenses. The PSA establishes that mandatory rules and procedures for the sales and transfers of the mortgages and mortgage notes from the originators to the Trust. It is this unbroken chain of assignments and negotiations that creates the BIG problem.

The primary purpose of securitization is to make sure the assets (e.g., mortgage notes) are both FDIC and Bankruptcy “remote” from the originator. As a result, the common structures seek to create at least two “true sales” between the originator and the Trust.

The most basic securitized structure has: the originator (Party A), the sponsor (Party B), the depositor (Party C) and the Trust (Party D). The other primary player is the Master Document Custodian for the Trust. The MDC is entrusted with the physical custody of all of the “original” notes and mortgages and the assignment, sales and purchase agreements. The MDC must also execute representations and attestations that all of the transfers really and truly occurred “on time” and in the required “order” and that “true sales” occurred at each link in the chain.
Section 2.01 of most PSAs includes the mandatory conveyancing rules for the Trust and the representations and warranties. The basic terms of this Section of the standard PSA is set-forth below:

2.01 Conveyance of Mortgage Loans. (a) The Depositor, concurrently with the execution and delivery hereof, hereby sells, transfers, assigns, sets over and otherwise conveys to the Trustee for the benefit of the Certificateholders, without recourse, all the right, title and interest of the Depositor in and to the Trust Fund, and the Trustee, on behalf of the Trust, hereby accepts the Trust Fund.

(b) In connection with the transfer and assignment of each Mortgage Loan, the Depositor has delivered or caused to be delivered to the Trustee for the benefit of the Certificateholders the following documents or instruments with respect to each Mortgage Loan so assigned:

(i) the original Mortgage Note (except for no more than up to 0.02% of the mortgage Notes for which there is a lost note affidavit and the copy of the Mortgage Note) bearing all intervening endorsements showing a complete chain of endorsement from the originator to the last endorsee, endorsed “Pay to the order of _____________, without recourse” and signed in the name of the last endorsee. To the extent that there is no room on the face of any Mortgage Note for an endorsement, the endorsement may be contained on an allonge, unless state law does not so allow and the Trustee is advised by the Responsible Party that state law does not so allow. If the Mortgage Loan was acquired by the Responsible Party in a merger, the endorsement must be by “[last endorsee], successor by merger to [name of predecessor]“. If the Mortgage Loan was acquired or originated by the last endorsee while doing business under another name, the endorsement must be
by “[last endorsee], formerly known as [previous name]“;

A review of all of the recent “standing” and “real party in interest” cases decided by the bankruptcy courts and the state courts in judicial foreclosure states all arise out of the inability of the mortgage servicer or the Trust to “prove up” an unbroken chain of “assignments and transfers” of the mortgage notes and the mortgages from the originators to the sponsors to the depositors to the trust and to the master document custodian for the trust. As stated in the referenced PSA, the parties have represented and warranted that there is “a complete chain of endorsements from the originator to the last endorsee” for the note. And, the Master Document Custodian must file verified reports that it in fact holds such documents with all “intervening” documents that confirm true sales at each link in the chain.

The complete inability of the mortgage servicers and the Trusts to produce such unbroken chains of proof along with the original documents is the genesis for all of the recent court rulings. One would think that a simple request to the Master Document Custodian would solve these problems. However, a review of the cases reveals a massive volume of transfers and assignments executed long after the “closing date” for the Trust from the “originator” directly to the “trust.”  (That's like jumping from Party A directly to Party D which cannot legally occur).

First, when transfers and assignments executed long after the “closing date” for the Trust (from from the “originator” (Party A) directly to the “trust” (Party D)), at the time these transfers and assignments are executed Party A has nothing to sell or transfer.  Why?  
1) The PSA provides such a sale and transfer occurred years ago.
2) The documents completely circumvent the primary objective of securitization by ignoring the “true sales” to the Sponsor (the B party) and the Depositor (the C party). In a true securitization, you would never have any direct transfers (A to D) from the originator to the trust.
3) These A to D transfers are totally inconsistent with the representations and warranties made in the PSA to the Securities and Exchange Commission and to the holders of the bonds (the “Certificateholders”) issued by the Trust.
4) In many cases the assignment and transfer documents are executed by parties who are not employed by the originator but who claim to have “signing authority” or some type of “agency authority” from the originator.
5) In these A to D transfers/assignments, the originator is legally defunct at the time the document is in fact signed or the document is signed with a current date but then states that it has an “effective date” that was one or two years earlier.



Plaintiff failed to comply with the foreclosure prevention loan servicing requirement imposed on Plaintiff pursuant to the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1701x(c)(5) which requires all private lenders servicing non-federally insured home loans, including the Plaintiff, to advise borrowers, including this separate Defendant, of any home ownership counseling Plaintiff offers together with information about counseling offered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

  1. Plaintiff cannot legally pursue foreclosure unless and until Plaintiff demonstrates compliance with 12 U.S.C. 1701x(c)(5).
  2. Plaintiff failed to provide separate Defendants with legitimate and non predatory access to the debt management and relief that must be made available to borrowers, including this Defendant pursuant to and in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement filed by the plaintiff with the Securities and Exchange Commission that controls and applies to the subject mortgage loan.
  3. Plaintiff’s non-compliance with the conditions precedent to foreclosure imposed on the plaintiff pursuant to the applicable pooling and servicing agreement is an actionable event that makes the filing of this foreclosure premature based on a failure of a contractual and/or equitable condition precedent to foreclosure which denies Plaintiff’s ability to carry out this foreclosure.
  4. The special default loan servicing requirements contained in the subject pooling and servicing agreement are incorporated into the terms of the mortgage contract between the parties as if written therein word for word and the defendants are entitled to rely upon the servicing terms set out in that agreement.
  5. Defendants are third party beneficiaries of the Plaintiff’s pooling and servicing agreement and entitled to enforce the special default servicing obligations of the plaintiff specified therein.
  6. Plaintiff cannot legally pursue foreclosure unless and until Plaintiff demonstrates compliance with the foreclosure prevention servicing imposed by the subject pooling and servicing agreement under which the plaintiff owns the subject mortgage loan.
  7. The section of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) is a public document on file and online at http://www.secinfo.com and the entire pooling and servicing agreement is incorporated herein.
  8. The Plaintiff failed, refused or neglected to comply, prior to the commencement of this action, with the servicing obligations specifically imposed on the plaintiff by the PSA in many particulars, including, but not limited to:
    a. Plaintiff failed to service and administer the subject mortgage loan in compliance with all applicable federal state and local laws.
    b. Plaintiff failed to service and administer the subject loan in accordance with the customary an usual standards of practice of mortgage lenders and servicers.
    c. Plaintiff failed to extend to defendants the opportunity and failed to permit a modification, waiver, forbearance or amendment of the terms of the subject loan or to in any way exercise the requisite judgment as is reasonably required pursuant to the PSA.
  9. The Plaintiff has no right to pursue this foreclosure because the Plaintiff has failed to provide servicing of this residential mortgage loan in accordance with the controlling servicing requirements prior to filing this foreclosure action.
  10. Defendants have a right to receive foreclosure prevention loan servicing from the Plaintiff before the commencement or initiation of this foreclosure action.
  11. Defendants are in doubt regarding their rights and status as borrowers under the National Housing Act and also under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement filed by the plaintiff with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Defendants are now subject to this foreclosure action by reason of the above described illegal acts and omissions of the Plaintiff.
  12. Defendants are being denied and deprived by Plaintiff of their right to access the required troubled mortgage loan servicing imposed on the plaintiff and applicable to the subject mortgage loan by the National Housing Act and also under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement filed by the plaintiff with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
  13. Defendants are being illegally subjected by the Plaintiff to this foreclosure action, being forced to defend the same and they are being charged illegal predatory court costs and related fees, and attorney fees. Defendants are having their credit slandered and negatively affected, all of which constitutes irreparable harm to Defendants for the purpose of injunctive relief.
  14. As a proximate result of the Plaintiff’s unlawful actions set forth herein, Defendants continue to suffer the irreparable harm described above for which monetary compensation is inadequate.
    18. Defendants have a right to access the foreclosure prevention servicing prescribed by the National Housing Act and under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement filed by the plaintiff with the Securities and Exchange Commission which right is being denied to them by the Plaintiff.
  15. These acts were wrongful and predatory acts by the plaintiff, through its predecessor in interest, and were intentional and deceptive.
  16. There is a substantial likelihood that Defendants will prevail on the merits of the case.

Request for additional help

Thank you for contacting Operation Restoration. Please fill in the information below if you need clarification on material or guidance on strategy. We will contact you shortly. Notes: (1) While the information provided on the website is free to use (if it helps you in any way, please remember to donate), we are transitioning into a donation-based personalized assistance operation. As you know this arena is very specialized. This mission has spent extensive hours over the past 6 years to remain ahead of the curve. (2) Remember, your participation and team work are necessary as ongoing in-depth research is necessary to achieve leverage. Education empowers people to survive and succeed. We look forward to speaking with you. Sincerely, Anne Batte Executive Director