You are here: Home / Archives for Deed Of Trust
Apr
20

New MERS Standing Case Splits Note and Mortgage: Bellistri v Ocwen Loan Servicing, Mo App.20100309

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

Leave a Comment

From Max Gardner – QUIET TITLE GRANTED

Bellistri v Ocwen Loan Servicing, Mo App.20100309

Mortgage Declared Unenforceable in DOT Case: NOTE DECLARED UNSECURED

“When MERS assigned the note to Ocwen, the note became unsecured and the deed of trust became worthless”

Editor’s Note:

We know that MERS is named as nominee as beneficiary. We know that MERS is NOT named on the note. This appellate case from Missouri, quoting the Restatement 3rd, simply says that the note was split from the security instrument, and that there is no enforcement mechanism available under the Deed of Trust. Hence, the court concludes, quiet title was entirely appropriate and the only remedy to the situation because once the DOT and note are split they is no way to get them back together.

NOTE: THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE NOTE WAS INVALIDATED. BUT IT DOES MEAN THAT IN ORDER TO PROVE A CLAIM UNDER THE NOTE OR TO VERIFY THE DEBT, THE HOLDER MUST EXPLAIN HOW IT ACQUIRED ANY RIGHTS UNDER THE NOTE AND WHETHER IT IS ACTING IN ITS OWN RIGHT OR AS AGENT FOR ANOTHER.

The deed of trust, …did not name BNC [AN AURORA/LEHMAN FRONT ORGANIZATION TO ORIGINATE LOANS] as the beneficiary, but instead names Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS), solely as BNC’s nominee. The promissory note does not make any reference to MERS. The note and the deed of trust both require payments to be made to the lender, not MERS.

a party “must have some actual, justiciable interest.” Id. They must have a recognizable stake. Wahl v. Braun, 980 S.W.2d 322 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998). Lack of standing cannot be waived and may be considered by the court sua sponte. Brock v. City of St. Louis, 724 S.W.2d 721 (Mo. App. E.D. 1987). If a party seeking relief lacks standing, the trial court does not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. Shannon, 21 S.W.3d at 842.

A Missouri appellate court, without trying, may have drawn a map to a defense to foreclosures-if borrowers can figure it out before the Missouri Supreme Court overturns the decision in Bellistri v Ocwen. The opinion shows how an assignment of a loan to a servicing company for collection can actually make the loan uncollectible from the mortgaged property.

This case concerns the procedures of MERS, which is short for Mortgage Electronic Registration Service, created to solve problems created during the foreclosure epidemic of the 1980s, when it was sometimes impossible to track the ownership of mortgages after several layers of savings and loans and banks had failed without recording assignments of the mortgages. The MERS website contains this explanation:

MERS is an innovative process that simplifies the way mortgage ownership and servicing rights are originated, sold and tracked. Created by the real estate finance industry, MERS eliminates the need to prepare and record assignments when trading residential and commercial mortgage loans.

MERS is the named mortgage holder in transactions having an aggregate dollar value in the hundreds of billions, and its service of providing a way to trace ownership of mortgages has played a large role in the securitization of mortgages and the marketability of derivative mortgage-backed securities, because it seemed to eliminate the necessity of recording assignments of mortgages in county records each time the ownership of a mortgage changed, allowing mortgage securities (packages of many mortgages) to be traded in the secondary market, with less risk.

This case began as a routine quiet title case on a collector’s deed, also known as a tax deed. Following the procedure by which people can pay delinquent property taxes and obtain the ownership of the delinquent property if the owner or lien holder fails after notice to redeem, Bellistri obtained a deed from the Jefferson County (Mo.) collector.

Because of the possibility of defects in the procedures of the county collectors and in the giving of proper notices, the quality of title conferred by a collector’s deed is not insurable.

A suit to cure the potential defects (called a “quiet title suit”) is required to make title good, so that the property can be conveyed by warranty deed and title insurance issued to new lenders and owners. The plaintiff in a quiet title suit is required to give notice of the suit to all parties who had an interest in the property identified in the collector’s deed.

A borrower named Crouther had obtained a loan from BCN Mortgage. The mortgage document (called a deed of trust) named MERS as the holder of the deed of trust as BCN’s nominee, though the promissory note secured by the deed of trust was payable to BCN Mortgage and didn’t mention MERS.

Crouther failed to pay property taxes on the mortgaged property.

Bellistri paid the taxes for three years, then sent notice to Crouther and  BNC that he was applying for a collector’s deed. After BNC failed to redeem (which means “pay the taxes with interest and penalties,” so that Bellistri could be reimbursed), the county collector issued a collector’s deed to Bellistri, in 2006.

Meanwhile, MERS assigned the promissory note and deed of trust to Ocwen Servicing, probably because nobody was making mortgage payments, so that Ocwen would be in a position to attempt to (a) get Crouther to bring the loan payments up to date or (b) to foreclose, if necessary. But this assignment, as explained below, eliminated Ocwen’s right to foreclose and any right to the property.

Bellistri filed a suit for quiet title and to terminate any right of Crouther to possess the property. After discovering the assignment of the deed of trust to Ocwen, Bellistri added Ocwen as a party to the quiet title suit, so that Ocwen could have an opportunity to prove that it had an interest in the property, or be forever silenced.

Bellistri’s attorney Phillip Gebhardt argued that Ocwen had no interest in the property, because the deed of trust that it got from MERS could not be foreclosed. As a matter of law, the right to foreclose goes away when the promissory note is “split”  from the deed of trust that it is supposed to secure. The note that Crouther signed and gave to BNC didn’t mention MERS, so MERS had no right to assign the note to Ocwen. The assignment that MERS made to Ocwen conveyed only the deed of trust, splitting it from the note.

When MERS assigned the note to Ocwen, the note became unsecured and the deed of trust became worthless. Ironically, the use of MERS to make ownership of the note and mortgage easier to trace also made the deed of trust unenforceable. Who knows how many promissory notes are out there that don’t mention MERS, even though MERS is the beneficiary of the deed of trust securing such notes?

O. Max Gardner III

Gardner & Gardner PLLC

PO Box 1000

Shelby NC 28151-1000

704.418.2628 (C)

704.487.0616 (O)

888.870.1647 (F)

704.475.0407 (S)

maxgardner@maxgardner.com

max@maxinars.com

www.maxgardnerlaw.com

www.maxbankruptcybootcamp.com

www.maxinars.com

www.governoromaxgardner.com

Next Boot Camp:  May 20 to May 24, 2010


Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, HERS, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud, Servicer Tagged: assignment, Aurora, Bellistri, Bellistri v Ocwen Loan Servicing, beneficiary, BNC, Case Decisions, DEED OF TRUST, derivative mortgage-backed securities, HERS, HOLDER, jurisdiction, Lehman, MERS, Mo App.20100309, Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS), note, Ocwen Loan Servicing, Phillip Gebhardt, quiet title, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, splitting note and mortgage, standing
Apr
09

Court Denies Motion to Dismiss and Holds Backdated Mortgage Assignments May be Invalid

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

Leave a Comment

The bad news is that the Court mistakenly assumes that MERS must be the party to enforce because the MERS assignment was backdated. MERS specifically and publicly disclaims any interest in the mortgage, note or obligation. How can MERS assign something it disclaims? MERS internet site and promotional literature all say the same thing — use us to record your assignments and transfers, we promise we’ll never assert any interest or ownership in the property, loan, note or mortgage.

The court also mistakenly quotes statute saying that a beneficiary under a deed of trust need not record the assignment of the beneficial interest. That may be true, but if the assignment is of the DOT without concurrent assignment of the note (and notice to the Trustor/Homeowner) the assignment is of dubious quality.

It is also curious why anyone would assign the deed of trust or a beneficial interest, since the assignment of the note would incorporate all interests under the security instrument under NORMAL conditions. But this isn’t normal, is it. They split the note from the mortgage and both the note and mortgage are split from the original obligation because the actual creditor is not even mentioned in the closing documents.

On March 30, 2010, in the case of Ohlendorf v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing

, (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31098) on Defendants’ 12(B)(6) Motion, United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs wrongful foreclosure claim on grounds that the assignment of mortgage was backdated and thus may have been invalid.

“On or about June 23, 2009, defendant T.D. Service Company (a foreclosure processing service) filed a notice of default in Placer County, identifying Deutsche Bank as beneficiary and AHMSI as trustee. In an assignment of deed of trust dated July 15, 2009, MERS assigned the deed of trust to AHMSI. This assignment of deed of trust purports to be effective as of June 9, 2009. A second assignment of deed of trust was executed on the same date as the first, July 15, 2009, but the time mark placed on the second assignment of deed of trust by the Placer County Recorder indicates that it was recorded eleven seconds after the first. In this second assignment of deed of trust, AHMSI assigned the deed of trust to Deutsche.  This assignment indicates that it was effective as of June 22, 2009. Both assignments were signed by Korell Harp. The assignment purportedly effective June 9, 2009, lists Harp as vice president of MERS and the assignment purportedly effective June 22, 2009, lists him as vice president of AHMSI. Six days later, on July 21, 2009, plaintiff recorded a notice of pendency of action with the Placer County Recorder.  In a substitution of trustee recorded on July 29, 2009, Deutsche, as present beneficiary, substituted ADSI as trustee.”

The court stated that “while California law does not require beneficiaries to record assignments, see California Civil Code Section 2934, the process of recording assignments with backdated effective dates may be improper, and thereby taint the notice of default.”

Plaintiff’s argument was interpreted by the court to be that the backdated assignments were not valid or at least were not valid on June 23, 2009, when the notice of default was recorded. As such the court assumed Plaintiff argued that MERS remained the beneficiary on that date and therefore was the only party who could enforce the default.

Judge Lawrence K. Karlton invited Defendants to file a motion to dismiss as to plaintiff’s wrongful foreclosure claim insofar as it is premised on the backdated assignments of the mortgage.

Dean Mostofi

301-867-3887


Filed under: CDO, CORRUPTION, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, HERS, Investor, Mortgage, Servicer Tagged: 12(B)(6) Motion, 2009, 2010, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31098, ADSI, AHMSI, Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, assignments, backdated assignments, California Civil Code Section 2934, CASES, DEED OF TRUST, Deutsche, Eastern District of California, foreclosure processing service), HERS, Judge Lawrence K. Karlton, June 22, Korell Harp, March 30, MERS, MOTION TO DISMISS, Notice of Default, Ohlendorf v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Placer County Recorder, T.D. Service Company, taint the notice of default, United States District Court, vice president of AHMSI, vice president of MERS, wrongful foreclosure claim
Apr
08

Notarized MERS Assignment of DOT as Nominee: Forensic Analysis and Motion Practice

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

1 Comment

I was looking at an assignment signed by Margaret Dalton, “Vice President”, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc (MERS) “as nominee” for “Hoecomings” (sic) Financial Network, Inc. with an execution date of March 5, 2010 and a notarization date of the same date, notarized by D. Pakusic in Duval County, Florida, naming United Independent Title as Trustee under the Deed of Trust and purporting to assign the Deed of Trust to JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association.

A forensic analysis report would or should state as follows:

  1. The title chain reveals the property is located in the County of Los Angeles, State of California and contains a purported assignment signed by Margaret Dalton, “Vice President”, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc (MERS) “as nominee” for “Hoecomings” (sic) Financial Network, Inc. with an execution date of March 5, 2010 and a notarization date of the same date, notarized by D. Pakusic in Duval County, Florida, naming United Independent Title as Trustee under the Deed of Trust and purporting to assign the Deed of Trust to JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association. in public records book ____, at page ____ of the County of _________, in the State of Florida. The document appears on its face to have been prepared by Malcolm-Cisneros, a Law Corporation located at 2112 Business Center Dr., Irvine, California 92612. Given the location of the property in California, the location of the law firm that prepared it in California and the location of of the other parties, the fact that it was “notarized” in Florida raises numerous forensic questions requiring production of additional documentation and facts.
  2. Location Issues: The property is located in the State of California, as are the Trustors under the Deed of Trust (DOT). Margaret Dalton is believed to be located in Irvine, California, possibly employed by or on the premises of the above-referenced Law Corporation. The Notary is located in Duval County, Florida which has no known connection with any of the parties. MERS offices are reported to be located in states other than California and the IT platform is reported to be located in the Midwest. Homecoming Financial Network, Inc. (which undersigned believes was intended by the referenced instruments and title chain) is authorized to do business in the State of California, but upon research does not appear to be a chartered bank, financial institution or lender. HFN is a mortgage originator acting on behalf of unknown sources of funds who may be located anywhere, since they are neither disclosed nor described in the closing documentation nor any document on record. Accordingly there is a question as to the identity of the creditor at the time of the origination of the loan, the identity of the creditor at the current time, and the identity of the creditor at all times between the origination of the loan and the present. There are also questions requiring additional documentation and fats to reveal whether the purported assignment was executed by or on behalf of anyone in Duval County, Florida where the instrument was notarized or in Irvine, California where the instrument may have been executed.
  3. Margaret Dalton’s employment is unknown but it does not appear that she has ever been an employee of MERS, nor that MERS is located where Margaret Dalton apparently signed the document. Previous investigations by the undersigned indicate that MERS is an electronic database privately owned and operated by fewer than 17 employees, which do not include Ms. Dalton. According to information received from MERS, the database platform operated by MERS for its members, has an access procedure consisting of a user ID and password. With such information any person could enter, alter or amend any entry in the MERS database. The procedure also provides access to an automated procedure wherein the user may name a person to serve as “vice-president” or “limited signing officer” for MERS. No record has been produced for this analysis indicating that Ms. Dalton was named as “vice-president” or whether she did so herself, nor whether she was authorized to do so or from whom said authority would be claimed. There is accordingly a question as to whether the document was in fact signed by Ms. Dalton, and if so whether she had authority to sign a document that conveyed an interest in real property.
  4. Given the above information, there is also a question as to whether the notarization was valid or void. Florida law provides that if the Notary knows that the person signing does not possess authority to sign or knows that the person is ignorant of their authority, that the oath administered is invalid and that the instrument is construed to be not notarized, despite the signature and stamp. Recording laws require notarization. Thus there is a question as to whether the document is or would be construed as a recorded instrument despite its obvious appearance in the title record. If it is not construed as a recorded instrument, then the chain of title should be amended to remove this document.
  5. The chain of title, as stated above, reveals a Deed of Trust (DOT) in favor of MERS as nominee. No issues are readily apparent as to the execution of the Deed of Trust. However, the content of the DOT raises factual issues that require further examination and the production of additional documents and information. Since MERS is an IT platform operated for the purposes of its private owners, it is not authorized by Florida Statutes nor California Statutes to serve as the equivalent of a recording record for instruments in the public records. It is a data entry and retrieval system that is private, not public. Since MERS was named as nominee and the MERS documentation available on the internet clearly state that under no circumstances will MERS ever claim an interest in the real property, the DOT, the note, nor will ever be the actual lender, beneficiary or mortgagee in any transaction, the effect of naming MERS raises factual issues since there are questions regarding title raised by the conflict between naming MERS and MERS disclaiming any such interest. There is no record of MERS accepting the position as nominee and if so under what circumstances. Those terms exist in agreements executed between members of MERS and one of the MERS corporations and are unavailable to the undersigned forensic analyst.
  6. The DOT and the above-referenced purported assignment refer to MERS as nominee for HFN, which was neither the creditor nor the lender at the time of the origination of the loan. Thus the DOT appears to name MERS (who disclaims any interest in the loan) on behalf of HFN (who served as a conduit for a table-funded loan transaction, probably as part of the securitization of the subject loan transaction) both of whom served principals that were not disclosed at the time of the origination of the loan nor, to the knowledge of the undersigned, to the present. The effect of misspelling the name of HFN on the purported assignment is unknown, but based upon advice from title agents consulted, it would be ordinarily required in any subsequent transaction, that the document be re-executed with the proper spelling. Whether this affects the legality of the instrument is unknown to the undersigned analyst.
  7. The purported assignment refers only to the DOT, which raises several questions. It is unknown whether an assignment of the note, as evidence of the underlying obligation, was executed at the same time as the purported assignment of the DOT. It is unknown whether all the necessary parties executed instruments required to authorize the assignments, and if so when this was accomplished. If there were no such other assignments then there is a question as to whether the instrument was effective, and if so, whether it intended to provide ownership of the security instrument (DOT) to one party while the ownership of the note remained or was transferred to another party, while at the same time the underlying obligation to yet another party may have existed between the Trustor as debtor and the source of funds for the origination of the loan, as creditor. Additional documentation and facts would be required to make these determinations.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, GTC | Honor, HERS, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud, Servicer Tagged: 2010, 2112 Business Center Dr., 92612, access procedure, as evidence of the underlying obligation, assignments, authority to sign, CALIFORNIA, California Statutes, chain of title, County of Los Angeles, creditor, D. Pakusic, Dalton, data entry and retrieval system, DEBTOR, DEED OF TRUST, DOT, Duval County, Florida, Florida Statutes, HERS, HFN, identity of the creditor, Inc., Irvine, IT platform, JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association, Malcolm-Cisneros, March 5, Margaret Dalton, MERS, MERS disclaiming, MERSCORP, Mortgage Electronic registration Systems, necessary parties, nominee, notarization, note, oath administered is invalid, Obligation, origination of the loan, ownership of the note, Public records, Recording laws, security instrument, signature and stamp, source of funds, Trustor, United Independent Title, unknown sources of funds, vice-president
Apr
06

MICHELE REAGAN SENATE CANDIDATE GETS IT AND GETS SUED FOR HER TROUBLES WITHOUT DEFAULT!

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

Leave a Comment

SEE MICHELLE REAGAN, ARIZONA STATE SENATE CANDIDATE

Finally a politician who puts principle ahead of politics!!

Michele Reagan, currently an Arizona legislator, deserves support not only for her campaign for Arizona State Senate, but for her battle with her lender. Her lender, Colonial Savings, decided to sue her for asking too many questions about how her loan was securitized. That’s right. She never missed a payment but she became concerned that her title and her money might be going the wrong way. So she did the only sensible thing — she asked. Enforcing her TILA and RESPA rights she asked a lot of questions about who holds her note, who owns her loan, who is the current beneficiary on her deed of trust, all of which seem to be different entities.

Colonial did what you’d expect. Stonewalled. And when she pressed the point they sued the lawmaker who has sponsored dozens of bills dealing with finance, tax and other issues for her constituency and the State of Arizona. I don’t endorse candidates usually. This is the first time. Representative Reagan did the right thing — she went public with it and spoke for tens of thousands of Arizonians and Millions of Americans who have been treated the same way by their servicers, the parties they thought were lenders, the courts and the government in general.


Filed under: foreclosure Tagged: ARIZONA, Colonial Savings, HERS, Michelle, Michelle reagan, Reagan, RESPA, State Senate, TILA
Apr
03

EVIDENCE OF THE OBLIGATION IS THE NOTE PLUS THE BOND

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

Leave a Comment

Assume that the transaction is a single transaction. The investor (creditor) lends the homeowner (debtor) money. Thus arises the obligation from the debtor to pay the creditor. In securitized loans a peculiar thing happens. The debtor signs a note like in all the old kind of mortgage loans, but the creditor gets a bond. As stated elsewhere on this blog this shell game leads to different or changing terms, conditions and even parties to the original obligation undertaken by the debtor, thus negatively impacting negotiability of the note, obligation and bond and probably negatively affecting the effectiveness of the security instrument (mortgage or deed of trust).

If the pretender lenders were legally correct in their premise the transaction would cease becoming an event and forever become a dynamic process wherein the beneficiary, payee, lender, and others would be constantly in motion depending upon the exigencies of the moment.

Their argument is that the reason their position should be sustained is the desirability of certainty in the marketplace. But their own behavior undermines their contention. By using nominees (e.g. MERS, or a “Trust” or “Trustee”) they fail to identify the real parties, whose identity is only revealed upon the happening of a future event or at least the passage of time.  The hapless borrower is left waiting in limbo for the creditor to be revealed.

It is usually stated in law books that the note is evidence of the obligation, it is not the obligation itself. And it is further stated that the mortgage or deed of trust is incident to the note and not the note. In securitized residential mortgage transactions, the evidence of the obligation is the note PLUS the mortgage backed bond, because it is the bond which the investor has received.

The bonds are sold with wording similar to JP Morgan wording as follows:

“The underlying certificates represent beneficial ownership interest in fixed-rate and adjustable-rate, conventional, first lien residential mortgage loans, substantially all of which have original terms to stated maturity of 30 years.”

It therefore follows that the evidence of the obligation consists of the NOTE and the BOND, since it is the BOND indenture that provides for conveyance of an ownership of the loans.

The obligation arose when the funds were advanced for the benefit of the homeowner. But the pool from which those funds were advanced came from investors who purchased certificates of asset backed securities. Those investors are the creditors because they received a certificate containing three promises: (1) repayment of principal non-recourse based upon the payments by obligors under the terms of notes and mortgages in the pool (2) payment of interest under the same conditions and (3) the conveyance of a percentage ownership in the pool, which means that collectively 100% of the investors own 100% of the the entire pool of loans. This means that the “Trust” does NOT own the pool nor the loans in the pool. It means that the “Trust” is merely an operating agreement through which the ivnestors may act collectively under certain conditions.  The evidence of the transaction is the note and the mortgage or deed of trust is incident to the transaction. But if you are following the money you look to the obligation.

The other peculiarity is that the name of the mortgagee or beneficiary is the name of an entity who serves as a nominee or in other words, in name only.

They never were the real beneficiary. In all securitized loans the named beneficiary is the nominal beneficiary — i.e., in name only. It means the Deed of Trust is void or voidable, but subject to reformation in court, which means they must file a lawsuit to reform the mortgage to comply with the real terms.


Filed under: foreclosure
Mar
25

Follow the Trail —Don’t get lost in the documents

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

Leave a Comment

I THOUGHT THIS COMMENT WAS WORTHY OF MAKING INTO A POST.

See for Deutsch bank references Prospectus offered all over the world: Anyone who had a Deed of Trust with: Indymac, Wells Fargo, Countrywide, GMAC, Ocwen, American Home, Residential Funding Company, Washington Mutual Bank, BofA, and many others you might want to check this link out. SHARPS%20CDO%20II_16.08.07_9347

Editor’s Note: The only thing I would add is that the obligation arose when the borrower executed a note, but the creditor got a securitized bond with different terms, deriving its value from your note and thousands of others. Once you realize that the obligation is NOT the same as the Note, which is only EVIDENCE of the obligation, and that the MORTGAGE is NOT the obligation, it is only incident to the note, THEN you will understand that following the money means following the obligation, not the note or the mortgage. And figuring out what effect there was on the obligation at each step that the note was transferred, bought or paid, is the key to understanding whether the note became a negotiable instrument, and if it did, if it retained that status as a negotiable instrument.

FROM Jan van Eck

to foreclosurefight:

What you are missing in your attempt to analyze this is that you are trying to follow the “mortgage,” not the Note. the reason you are doing this is that only the “mortgage,” as the Security Instrument, is being recorded on the land records – so it is all you get to see.

the reason your adversaries, whoever they really are, “withdrew” from the relief from Stay Motion in the BK Court is that they do not have the Note. Somebody else does. And you have no clue as to who that is.

You have to start by determining what has happened to the Note, and how the Indorsements on the Note flow. And you have not seen the Note, not in years, so the raw truth is that you have no clue.

the “mortgage” never went into any “Trust.” Mortgages do not go into trusts. Only the Note (“maybe”) went into a trust – and only if it had proper Indorsement. Since Deutsche is involved, you can safely bet that it did not. Deutsche is NOTORIOUS for perpetrating fraud on the Courts and by fabricating documents. You may assume that EVERYTHING that Deutsche shows up with is a fraud, and has been fraudulently fabricated, typically in their offices on Liberty Street in Downtown Manhattan NY.

What is missing in your convoluted chain of title is that there was a ton of other parties involved in setting up that “Trust”, including some Delaware sham entity known as the “Depositor,” and then another sham known as the “Seller,” and more. When you burrow through that Prospectus you will find those entities listed. Now you have to dig out the Note, and find if those entities are individually and sequentially listed on the Note by consecutive Indorsements. Since Deutsche had their sticky fingers in the pie, you already know that they did not.

What State are you in? Yes, you need new counsel. You should never have gotten into this with old counsel.

You can still defeat them, but you probably will have to go file in District (Federal ) Court. You will have to sue Deutsche. Think in terms of suing them in the USDC for the Sou.Distr. NY, in White Plains, NY. Now you are not tangled up in the State-Fed politics of your local judges.

You cannot ask for Quiet title as you are asking for that in the State Court. You have to go in with entirely new grounds or they will not hear your case. So you sue them for fraud in interstate commerce. Try the “Commerce Clause” in the US Constitution (Amendment 16? I forget), to try to get “jurisdiction.” You get “venue” easily as Deutsche Bank is in NY. You do not need to show up; you just file and do your papers by mail. If yo ask for enough money, e.g. 40 million, then DB has something to start worrying about.

Right now, DB has no downside. If they lose, all they lose is some paper on some worthless piece of property in some state that is flooded with empty foreclosed houses that nobody can sell. So what do they care? DB probably does not even know or care that your lawsuit is going on; you are just dealing with lawyers that are running up their tab with DB, and DB has so many tabs that they do not try to keep track of it all. So you have to expose them to some serious hurt. A gigantic lawsuit is a good place to start.

You may assume that everything DB and those attys produce is utterly fraudulent. I have seen documents produced where the entire Trust Agreement was fabricated, and notarized by a notary who did not even get his first commission until two years after he swore that the parties were standing in front of him. Welcome to Wall Street banks – the international predator banks.

Besides Deutsche, Credit Suisse is also notorious for this type of flagrant fraud upon our Courts.


Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: American Home, Bank of MAerica, Commerce Clause, countrywide, Credit Suisse, DEED OF TRUST, Deutsch Bank, Fabrication of documents, fraud upon the court, GMAC, Indorsements, INDYMAC, Liberty Street, Manhatten, Mortgage, negotiable isntrument, note, Obligation, Ocwen, Residential Funding Company, Trust Agreement, Washington Mutual Bank, Wells Fargo
Mar
17

TILA Rescission Revived Without Tender

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

Leave a Comment

Max Gardner’s Protoge Achieved This result as Reported Max’s Current Newsletter:

Editor’s Note: Most of what we have seen reported indicates that although TILA is clear in is legislative expression that NO TENDER is required for the rescission remedy under TILA, Judges don’t like it. It seems they feel that Big Bad Borrowers are taking advantage of Bambi Banks. Yet here is a case where the Judge DID apply the law as written.

TILA was written with teeth, but Judges are reluctant to apply it. Yet on its face TILA possesses the strongest remedy against predatory loan practices in existence. It allows the borrower to declare a rescission which requires the alleged lender to (a) step forward (which they don’t want to do) (b) file a satisfaction of mortgage and (c) negotiate return of the money, less of course any claims for damages that the borrower has claimed and can prove.

This comes back to the issue of the real creditor, the pretender lender etc. In the current environment, there is nobody around who actually has the authority to satisfy a mortgage. But TILA addresses that too. It says that by operation of law the security instrument is void not voidable. Thus the mortgage or deed of trust no longer applies because it is void even if it was properly recorded. In turn, this means the debt, if any, has been converted from secured to unsecured.

The bargaining power of the borrower cannot be overstated if this provision of TILA is applied. By eliminating the secured aspect of the mortgage, the loan is easily stripped down to fair market value less damages, attorneys fees, interest paid, etc. We can only hope that we see more application of law as written and less hip-shooting from the bench creating uncertainty and complexity where the law could not be more clear.

Defendant U.S. Bank, N.A., as Trustee for the LXS2007-4N Trust (“U.S. Bank”), seeks dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) of a complaint filed by plaintiff
homeowner Henry Botelho. Specifically, U.S. Bank claims that Botelho cannot state a claim for rescission of his mortgage loan under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., unless he alleges a present ability to tender the loan proceeds. As discussed in
further detail in the Order, such an allegation is not necessary for Botelho’s case to survive the pleading stage.
Accordingly, U.S. Bank’s motion is denied.
Hat tip to Boot Camp Grad Carmen Dellutri http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/
200814991.pdf


Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage Tagged: 15 U.S.C. § 1601, Botelho, FRCP 12(b)(6), LXS2007-4N Trust, rescission, tender, TILA, Truth in Lending Act, U.S. Bank
Dec
14

How to Use MERS on Deed of Trust or Mortgage

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

Leave a Comment

A
Newer Posts »
Website Designed and Developed by Tampa Web Designer