Trustees: Deed, Pool, Certificate-Holders, Substitutions and Beneficiaries

  1. from-faq-powers-of-multiple-trustees-and-effects-of-multiple-beneficiaries-and-getting-soemthing-recorded-before-the-foreclosure-sale-takes-place

  2. trustee-for-investors-powers-and-limitations-with-livinglies-annotations-critical-in-your-presentation-in-court

  3. excellent-mers-analysis-illegal-scheme-to-avoidevade-state-law-taxes-fees-fines-penalties
  4. mers-membership-information-reveals-index-to-securitization-and-investors-allegation-that-mers-is-authorized-or-even-nominal-beneficiary-is-false

2 Responses

  1. sue, on August 21st, 2009 at 5:14 pm Said:

    My NOD lists an investor number that is not named as Movant and isn’t listed in MERS nor the SEC website.

    So, I ask – If the Investor is not a home loan lending bank what recourse do they have?
    What equitable remedy are they entitled to enforce?
    Aren’t they still third party interlopers to the loan agreement with limited recourse against the homeowner?

    Inversely, we as homeowners remain unable to reinstate good standing with the proper lender whom we have the right to pay above their right to payment.

    See, for bankrupt lender to settle liabilities, they err again when they sell unliquidated assets without knowing what ’s been sold, furthering the chaos. Add insult to injury, these lending banks are bled assets from underneath, often in violation of stay orders or restrictions ordered in Ch 11 courts, because they have derecognized their asset loan pool.

    Again, this further removes homeowner’s rights to remedy or cure, right to repay, and right to reinstate.

    Recently, insurance companies that offered “credit enhanced” securities have become largely insolvent – or should I say illiquid.

    “theory”, but that’s due to the fact that I am only now learning the proper language to make a coherent argument based on “law and fact.” In the meantime lawyers make assumptions, and only lay out part of the problem for the judge, as in my case. I just realized that adequate protection is not for the debtor, it’s nonexistent in Ch 13, unless you want to continue playing this insane game of making payments to third party interlopers who lack authority to foreclose.

    It’s the third party obligatory contracts of other third-party contracts that have nothing to do with me, nevertheless they take steps to foreclose and take property.

    The lender’s procedures are discoverable and for the most part are publicly available online, and knowing now what I didn’t know then, I would have done things differently, starting with the NOD, or at latest, the moment the “bank” turned down my request to reinstate.

    I’d file an injunction or temp restraining order because third parties are on the move and are bound by contract to take property.
    With a case pending in court, I’d then file a lis pendins.
    I’d get my arsenal ready with a certified record of the NOD from the county recorder.
    Then I’d obtain a property profile report from a Title company , and ask for all MERS reports that are accessible as part of the title chain.
    My goal from the onset would have been to prove or disprove the proper chain to perfect security interest was timely and followed.

    I’d always keep in mind that TILA is a self-remedy in many cases, yes I did say ‘SELF’ remedy – your lender as you knew him cannot – BY LAW – recognize you ( FASB 140). Sometimes the only remedy is the adversary proceeding where existing LAW unmasks pretenders with FACTS.
    I keep referring back to the deed of trust, because when I compare what’s going on around me, third party actions aren’t in compliance with its terms, and irreconcilable.

    I’m sorry I can’t insert applicable laws here, but I’ve compiled some from the IRS, Banking, USC, UCC, CCC, Fed Regs, FTC, Securites, and statements from GAAP, FASB, etc, but the one that comes to mind is Securities Investor Protection (act?) and Compensation (SIPC), I believe the Investment would be ‘taken’ by and distributed properly outside of bankruptcy, – simply stated -it’s all fun and games until the law shows up.

  2. Judy A Scott, on April 22nd, 2009 at 9:52 am Said:

    I have read recently that MERS is not the beneficiary of securitization of deed?

    Please respond I have sent Reg Z letters to CitiMortgage Wilmington Finance and RCS.

Leave a Reply