U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez | How does a loan for $103,500 actually cost the investors a loss of $274,340.89?

U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez 458 Mass. 637 (2011) – The High Cost of Litigation

This case is a fiasco beyond imagination. This boarded up house was the subject of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision where US Bank as Trustee of a securitized trust lost in an attempt to obtain a judicial declaration of clear title. The investors now have an accounting that they can review. The losses keep coming month after month and may not be finalized for many more years. Here is what is being reported to the investors and ratings agencies as of February 2012:

Current Amt: $0.00

Paidoff: 9/2008

Last Report Date: 2/2012

Liquidation: $102,077

Curr Loss (as of 2/2012): $29,832.56

Cumulative loss: $274,340.89

Loss Severity (%): 268.76%

Original Amount: $103,500

The cumulative loss and loss severity are extremely high. This is not a record high for the amount or the loss severity percentage. But for a boarded up house that is probably not worth $100,000.00 it sure is quite a hit.

Rest here…

~

4closureFraud.org

Comments
4 Responses to “U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez | How does a loan for $103,500 actually cost the investors a loss of $274,340.89?”
  1. Momma says:

    Good questions, Pedro. Good questions. The investors don’t know either. Only the banksters know. It isn’t just lawyers, Beth. The servicers add a lot of “junk fees” to every loan. It is a scam that pays the banks multiple times. Don’t forget these loans are insured for losses (remember AIG?) and have pools of reserves for losses. One loan, so many ways to profit…

  2. Simple, fraud on top of fraud

  3. Pedro says:

    Wait a second…isn’t the Ibanez loan the same loan that the banksters/servicers couldn’t provide proof to the court that the loan was even a part of the trust that employed the servicers?

    If memory serves me correctly, the banksters had over two years to provide evidence to the court that the Ibanez loan was in fact a part of the trust. In the end all that was provided to the court at trial, by the bankster’s lawyers was a printout of the trust’s PSA from the “Edgar” website and no further proof of ownership.

    How is it possible that the “investors” in this trust are letting the servicers deduct these “losses” from the cash flow of the trust?

    If the banksters couldn’t prove ownership to the court in order to receive a “quiet title”, how are these same banksters able to allege ownership of this loan by the trust for the purposes of collecting fees?

    Is this another layer of fraud that isn’t covered in the settlement?
    I’m not asking these questions rhetorically, I would like to know what other readers have to say.

  4. Beth A. says:

    Cost of litigation.
    You have lawyers for the banksters feeding off the system as well.

    Unreal.

Leave a Reply