Monthly Archives: April 2015

Securitisation

Securitisation: The basics

Securitization is the financial practice of pooling various types of contractual debt such as residential mortgages, commercial mortgages, auto loans or credit card debt obligations (or other non-debt assets which generate receivables) and selling them to third party investors as securities which may be described as bonds, pass-through securities, or collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). The principal and interest on the debt, underlying the security, is paid back to the various investors regularly. Securities backed by mortgage receivables are called mortgage-backed securities (MBS), while those backed by other types of receivables are asset-backed securities (ABS).

Critics have suggested that the complexity inherent in securitization can limit investors’ ability to monitor risk, and that competitive securitization markets with multiple securitizers may be particularly prone to sharp declines in underwriting standards. Private, competitive mortgage securitization is believed to have played an important role in the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis.[1]

In addition, off-balance sheet treatment for securitizations coupled with guarantees from the issuer can hide the extent of leverage of the securitizing firm, thereby facilitating risky capital structures and leading to an under-pricing of credit risk. Off-balance sheet securitizations are believed to have played a large role in the high leverage level of U.S. financial institutions before the financial crisis, and the need for bailouts.[2]

The granularity of pools of securitized assets can mitigate the credit risk of individual borrowers. Unlike general corporate debt, the credit quality of securitized debt is non-stationary due to changes in volatility that are time- and structure-dependent. If the transaction is properly structured and the pool performs as expected, the credit risk of all tranches of structured debt improves; if improperly structured, the affected tranches may experience dramatic credit deterioration and loss.[3]

Securitization has evolved from its beginnings in the late 18th century to an estimated outstanding of $10.24 trillion in the United States and $2.25 trillion in Europe as of the 2nd quarter of 2008. In 2007, ABS issuance amounted to $3.455 trillion in the US and $652 billion in Europe.[4] WBS (Whole Business Securitization) arrangements first appeared in the United Kingdom in the 1990s, and became common in various Commonwealth legal systems where senior creditors of an insolvent business effectively gain the right to control the company.[5]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securitization

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

Court Staff, Police Constables, Solicitors & Barristers

Breach Of The Peace

One of the actual parts of the Oath of Office for the British Bobby.

As we are concerned with England and Wales on this site, here is an extract of the Police Constables Oath

England and Wales

Territorial police constables

The 43 territorial police forces in England and Wales are responsible for general policing. Members of the police forces are attested under section 29 of the Police Act 1996.[1] The prescribed form of words is that given by schedule 4 to the Act (inserted by section 83 of the Police Reform Act 2002[2]), as follows:

English

I, … of … do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.

Welsh

Rwyf i…o…yn datgan ac yn cadarnhau yn ddifrifol ac yn ddiffuant y byddaf yn gwasanaethu’r Frenhines yn dda ac yn gywir yn fy swydd o heddwas (heddferch), yn deg, yn onest, yn ddiwyd ac yn ddiduedd, gan gynnal hawliau dynol sylfaenol a chan roddi’r un parch i bob person; ac y byddaf i, hyd eithaf fy ngallu, yn achosi i’r heddwch gael ei gadw a’i ddiogelu ac yn atal pob trosedd yn erbyn pobl ac eiddo; a thra byddaf yn parhau i ddal y swydd ddywededig y byddaf i, hyd eithaf fy sgil a’m gwybodaeth, yn cyflawni’r holl ddyletswyddau sy’n gysylltiedig â hi yn ffyddlon yn unol â’r gyfraith.

So what actually is a “Breach of the Peace”?

Its important that we have this issue entirely correct with case law and any other evidence and facts to ensure that the People of this Land have access to the same information as a Police Constable.

Any information that you may have please let us have the links so this info can be placed up here

Something to think about ...

Would you do this?

Would you fill in an application form for a loan …

and then give a bank your money only for them to give it back and call it a loan?

Oh and then they charge you interest on your money?

Oh and pledge the house that you thought that you just bought?

No, you wouldn’t would you, or we would like to think that 11.2 million people in the country wouldn’t either.

Would you believe it for one moment that this in all likelihood is happening every time a “Loan” is carried out?

There may well be some tiny differences to this in practice but this is what is really happening.

Quite simply…Why would you borrow your own Money?

This would be classed as Mutual Intent. You never intended to borrow your own Money.

Stayed tuned for more info like this.

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

 

 

Definitions

Possession

In law, possession is the control a person intentionally exercises toward a thing. In all cases, to possess something, a person must have an intention to possess it. A person may be in possession of some property (although possession does not always imply ownership). Like ownership, the possession of things is commonly regulated by states under property law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_%28law%29

However in English law, specifically the Law of Property Act 1925 it has a statutory meaning.

from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/205 we have the following:

(xix)“Possession” includes receipt of rents and profits or the right to receive the same, if any; and “income” includes rents and profits;

#VOIDMORTGAGE

Definitions

Distress and Distraint

Distraint or distress is “the seizure of someone’s property in order to obtain payment of rent or other money owed”, especially in common law countries.[1] Distraint is the act or process “whereby a person (the distrainor), traditionally even without prior court approval, seizes the personal property of another located upon the distrainor’s land in satisfaction of a claim, as a pledge for performance of a duty, or in reparation of an injury.”[2] Distraint typically involves the seizure of goods (chattels) belonging to the tenant by the landlord to sell the goods for the payment of the rent. In the past, distress was often carried out without court approval. Today, some kind of court action is usually required,[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distraint

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

Something to think about ...

Deed Vs Contract Argument or S1 vs S2

The legal profession are at their wits end to obfuscate the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/contents LPA MP 1989

Its obvious why to the percentage who make their money out of house possessions.

It becomes a little more interesting when you realise that most people in the legal profession are likely to have a “Mortgage” themselves and do not deal with conveyancing.

Why then do they not join in if they could save themselves and their families and the rest of the 11.2 million people in the country a lifetime of debt called a Mortgage or Death Pledge.

Most of the arguments from court transcripts suggest that all mortgages are done by deed and that only Section 1 of LPA MP1989 applies.

They neglect to read the full sentence of the act, ie they all only read this bit …

2 Contracts for sale etc. of land to be made by signed writing.

when in fact it clearly says this,

“A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where contracts are exchanged, in each.”

They have made it a Deed vs Contract argument when in fact clearly both can and should apply.

It would be incumbent on all conveyancing solicitors to actually read this bit and get the entity who is to provide the alleged loan to comply with signing the deed.

If you do not then you are you are not giving best advice to the client who is entering into this debt obligation. You should get the entity who is to provide the alleged “loan” to sign their part first before presentment to the prospective “Mortgagor”.

So next time you do not provide best advice please be warned in advance you will be setting yourself up for all sorts of claims.

Its even more incredulous that with so much information widely available from reputable sources that solicitors and accountants cannot grasp this amazingly easy to comprehend fraud that is being perpetrated against the people of this country.

Please see this links for further info Something for Nothing and  Creation of Money

You have been told and the information is out there!

#VOIDMORTGAGE

Something to think about ...

THE Deed equals THE Document

The Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 clearly sets out some rules that need to be adhered to by professionals when it comes to “Dispositions” of property.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/contents

The elephant in the room is that the legal profession clearly think that a deed as part of the “Disposition” called a “Mortgage” does not need two signatures ie from both parties.

This may well be the case in all other circumstances but Section 2 clearly states:

S2(1) A contract for the sale or other disposition …

and

s2(3)The document incorporating the terms or, where contracts are exchanged, one of the documents incorporating them (but not necessarily the same one) must be signed by or on behalf of each party to the contract. (see below 1)

The “Disposition” known as a “Mortgage” clearly comes under these sections.

Therefore THE DOCUMENT containing THE DISPOSITION (ie Mortgage) is called what exactly?

You see the fact is that there are TWO DISPOSITIONS going on.

One Sale and Purchase Agreement and one Mortgage Agreement. Both are done by deed.

Again, from LPAMP1989 s2(2)

“The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out in it or by reference to some other document.”

All the information (elements) leading up to THE Mortgage (DISPOSITION) are where exactly?

Which ACTUAL DOCUMENT is being referred to?

There is only one that contains all this info and it is this document that is referred to at a possession hearing and is the one used at/for the Land Registry. This now being called a “Charge”

By the process of elimination therefore,

“THE DEED EQUALS THE DOCUMENT”

Also,

All DEEDS are Documents but not all Documents are DEED’S

(1) A deed is a speciality contract.

“Halsbury’s Laws of England/CONTRACT (VOLUME 9(1) (REISSUE))/1. INTRODUCTION/(3)
CLASSIFICATIONS/616. Contracts made by deed.
616. Contracts made by deed.
At common law, contracts by deed (specialties) were made under seal 1 , though not all deeds amounted to
specialties 2 . The separate promises made in such a contract are frequently termed covenants 3 .”

A discussion on this point will be available on the

VOIDMORTGAGE KNOWLEDGEBASE here at www.gerbilstuff.com/knowledgebase link asap

#VOIDMORTGAGE

Definitions

Void Vs Voidable

What Are the Differences Between,

A Void Contract and a Voidable Contract?

When dealing with contracts, the terms “void” and “voidable” are often confused. Even though these two contract types seem similar, they are actually completely different.

A contract that is “void” cannot be enforced by either party., The law treats a void contract as if it had never been formed. A contract will be considered void, for example, when it requires one party to perform an act that is impossible or illegal.

A “voidable” contract, on the other hand, is a valid contract and can be enforced. Usually only one party is bound to the contract terms in a voidable contract. The unbound party is allowed to cancel the contract, which makes the contract void.

The main difference between the two is that a void contract cannot be performed under the law, while a voidable contract can still be performed, although the unbound party to the contract can choose to void it before the other party performs.

What Are Some Examples of Void and Voidable Contracts?

Void contracts are unenforceable by law. Even if one party breaches the agreement, you cannot recover anything because essentially there was no valid contract. Some examples of void contracts include:

  • Contracts involving an illegal subject matter such as gambling, prostitution, or committing a crime.
  • Contracts entered into by someone not mentally competent (mental illness or minors).
  • Contracts that require performing something impossible or depends on an impossible event happening.
  • Contracts that are against public policy because they are too unfair.
  • Contracts that restrain certain activities (right to choose who to marry, restraining legal proceedings, the right to work for a living, etc.).

Voidable contracts are valid agreements, but one or both of the parties to the contract can void the contract at any time. As a result, you may not be able to enforce a voidable contract:

  • Contracts entered into when one party was a minor. (The law often treats minors as though they do not have the capacity to enter a contract. As a result, a minor can walk away from a contract at any time.)
  • Contracts where one party was forced or tricked into entering it.
  • Contracts entered when one party was incapacitated (drunk, insane, delusional).

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/void-vs-voidable-contract-lawyers.html

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

 

Definitions

Negligence

Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally “not to pick up something”) is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances.[1] The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.

According to Jay M. Feinman of the Rutgers University School of Law;

The core idea of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care when they act by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people.”[2]

those who go personally or bring property where they know that they or it may come into collision with the persons or property of others have by law a duty cast upon them to use reasonable care and skill to avoid such a collision.”

—Fletcher v Rylands ([1866] LR 1 Ex 265)

Through civil litigation, if an injured person proves that another person acted negligently to cause their injury, they can recover damages to compensate for their harm. Proving a case for negligence can potentially entitle the injured plaintiff to compensation for harm to their body, property, mental well-being, financial status, or intimate relationships. However, because negligence cases are very fact-specific, this general definition does not fully explain the concept of when the law will require one person to compensate another for losses caused by accidental injury. Further, the law of negligence at common law is only one aspect of the law of liability. Although resulting damages must be proven in order to recover compensation in a negligence action, the nature and extent of those damages are not the primary focus of negligence cases.[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE

 

Definitions

Trespass

Trespass is an area of criminal law or tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels and trespass to land.

Trespass to the person historically involved six separate trespasses: threats, assault, battery, wounding, mayhem, and maiming.[1] Through the evolution of the common law in various jurisdictions, and the codification of common law torts, most jurisdictions now broadly recognize three trespasses to the person: assault, which is “any act of such a nature as to excite an apprehension of battery”;[2] battery, “any intentional and unpermitted contact with the plaintiff’s person or anything attached to it and practically identified with it”;[2] and false imprisonment, the “unlaw[ful] obstruct[ion] or depriv[ation] of freedom from restraint of movement”.[3]

Trespass to chattels, also known as trespass to goods or trespass to personal property, is defined as “an intentional interference with the possession of personal property … proximately caus[ing] injury”.[4] Trespass to chattel does not require a showing of damages. Simply the “intermeddling with or use of … the personal property” of another gives cause of action for trespass.[5][6] Since CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions,[7] various courts have applied the principles of trespass to chattel to resolve cases involving unsolicited bulk e-mail and unauthorized server usage.[8][9][10][11]

Trespass to land is today the tort most commonly associated with the term trespass; it takes the form of “wrongful interference with one’s possessory rights in [real] property”.[12] Generally, it is not necessary to prove harm to a possessor’s legally protected interest; liability for unintentional trespass varies by jurisdiction. “[A]t common law, every unauthorized entry upon the soil of another was a trespasser”, however, under the tort scheme established by the Restatement of Torts, liability for unintentional intrusions arises only under circumstances evincing negligence or where the intrusion involved a highly dangerous activity.[13]

Trespass has also been treated as a common law offense in some countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letang_v_Cooper

 

#VOIDMORTGAGE