Here it is: Nonjudicial Foreclosure Violates Due Process in Complex Structured Finance Transactions

No, there isn’t a case yet. But here is my argument.

The main point is that we are forced to accept the burden of disproving a case that had not been filed — the very essence of nonjudicial foreclosure. In order to comply with due process, a simple denial of the facts and legal authority to foreclosure should be sufficient to force the case into a courtroom where the parties are realigned with the so-called new beneficiary is the Plaintiff and the homeowner is the Defendant — since it is the “beneficiary” who is seeking affirmative relief.

But the way it is done and required to be done, the Plaintiff must file an attack on a case that has never been alleged anywhere in or out of court. The new beneficiary anoints itself, files a fraudulent substitution of trustee because the old one would never go along with it, and then files a notice of default and notice of sale all on the premise that they have the necessary proof and documents to support what could have been an action in foreclosure brought by them in a judicial manner, for which there is adequate provision in California law.

Instead nonjudicial foreclosure is being used to sell property under circumstances where the alleged beneficiary under the deed of trust could never prevail in a court proceeding. Nonjudicial foreclosure was meant to be an expedient method of dealing with the vast majority of foreclosures when the statute was passed. In that vast majority, the usual procedure was complaint, default, judgment and then sale with at least one hearing in between. Nearly all foreclosures were resolved that way and it become more of a ministerial act for Judges than an actual trier of fact or judge of procedural rights and wrongs.

But the situation is changed. The corruption on Wall Street has been systemic resulting in whole sale fraudulent fabricated forged documents together with perjury by affidavit and even live testimony. Contrary to the consensus supported by the banks, these cases are complex because the party seeking affirmative relief — i.e., the new “beneficiary” is following a complex script established long before the homeowner ever applied for a loan or was solicited to finance her property.

The San Francisco study concluded, like dozens of other studies across the country that most of the foreclosures were resolved in favor of “strangers to the transaction.” By definition, the use of several layers of companies and multiple sets of documents defining two separate deals (one with the investor lenders and one with the borrower, with the only party in common being the broker dealer selling mortgage bonds and their controlled entities) has turned the mundane into highly complex litigation that has no venue. In non-judicial foreclosures the Trustee is the party who acts to sell the property under instructions from the beneficiary and does so without inquiry and without paying any attention to the obvious conflict between the title record, the securitization record, the homeowner’s position and the prior record owner of the loan.

The Trustee has no power to conduct a hearing, administrative or judicial, and so the dispute remains unresolved while the Trustee proceeds to sell the property knowing that the homeowner has raised objections. Under normal circumstances under existing common law and statutory authority, the Trustee would simply bring the matter to court in an action for interpleader saying there is a dispute that he doesn’t have the power to resolve. You might think this would clog the court system. That is not the case, although some effort by the banks would be made to do just that. Under existing common law and statutory law, the beneficiary would then need to file a complaint, verified, sworn with real exhibits and that are subject to real scrutiny before any burden of proof would shift to the homeowner. And as complex as these transactions are they all are subject to simple rules concerning financial transactions. If there was no money in the alleged transaction then the allegation of a transaction is false.

It was and remains a mistake to allow such loans to be foreclosed through any means other than strictly judicial where the “beneficiary” must allege and prove ownership and the balance due on the loan owed to THAT beneficiary. Requiring homeowners with zero sophistication in finance and litigation to bear the initial burden of proof in such highly complex structured finance schemes defies logic and common sense as well as being violative of due process in the application of the nonjudicial statutes to these allegedly securitized loans.

By forcing the parties and judges who sit on the bench to treat these complex issues as though they were simple cases, the enabling statutes for nonjudicial foreclosure are being applied unconstitutionally.

Vacate the Substitution of Trustee

“The Bottom Line is that if the REMIC transactions were real, they would have been named on the note and mortgage. The fact that they never were named or disclosed demonstrates clearly that something else was going on besides funding mortgages with REMIC money from investors. Nobody would loan money without putting their name as payee on the note, their name as lender on the note and mortgage and their name as beneficiary. The Wall Street explanation that MERS and other obscurities were necessary to securitize the loans is in fact directly contrary to the fact that the loans were never securitized, that the mortgage bonds were bogus obligations from empty REMICs with no bank account and no active manager or trustee.” Neil F Garfield, livinglies.me

A recent case I reviewed, resulted in a full analysis, and my suggestions for strategy, tactics, pleading and oral argument. It involved Bank of America,  Recontrust and BONY/Mellon.

What is again so interesting is that we are dealing with BOA in SImi Valley, CA (supposedly) with Reconstrust in in in Richardson, TX. What is interesting is that the response to my letter which was addressed only to Recontrust came from BOA. This is evidence of the fact that Recontrust are one and the same entity. It doesn’t prove it but it is evidence of it. Thus the challenge to the substitution of trustee comes under the heading that a beneficiary cannot name itself as the trustee. The statute says the TRUSTOR names the trustee on the deed of trust not the beneficiary. And while the beneficiary may change the trustee there is nothing in the statute that even suggests that a beneficiary could name itself as the new trustee. The statute says that the trustee is to substitute for a court of law and that it is to exercise (See Hogan decision and others) a fiduciary duty toward both the Trustor and the beneficiary.

In most cases, the appearance of Bank of America as a beneficiary is via “merger with BAC” which was created to take the servicing rights from Countrywide (not the ownership of the loan). Yet the debt validation letter causes a response to show that the creditor is Bank of America while the Notice of Default shows as having a REMIC as the creditor, which would make the REMIC the beneficiary. So we have a conflict of creditors that comes from the same source.

Since the REMIC is required by law and contract to be closed out within 90 days with the loans in it, and since we know they didn’t do that, the money from the investors was beyond any reasonable doubt channeled through  conduits controlled by the investment banker and not the account of the REMIC because there was no trust account, bank account or any account through which the investor money was channeled and then sued to fund or buy loans. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the entire scheme is a smoke screen for what really occurred.

Based upon what we know, the REMIC structure was actually ignored when it came to the movement of money. Based upon what we know, Quicken Loans and others acted as “originators”, which is a word that is not really defined legally but it would imply that it was the sales entity to reel in borrowers for a deal. While Quicken Loans was shown as payee on the note and lender on the note and mortgage (deed of trust), Quicken had neither loaned any money nor secured the loan through any legal nexus between Quicken and the investors. MERS was inserted as a placeholder for title purposes. Quicken was thus inserted as a placeholder for payment purposes — all without ad  equate disclosure of the compensation received by MERS or QUICKEN in the deal (a clear violation of TILA and RESPA).

Immediately after the closing of the loan the borrower was informed that the servicing rights had been transferred to Countrywide, and thereafter BAC emerged as the servicer. BAC was formed as a wholly owned subsidiary of bank of America and then merged with Bank of America for unknown reasons, and thus the servicing of the loan was assumed to be the right of Bank of America. But what was there to service?

If Quicken did not advance the funds for the loan nor did Quicken or any of its “successors” advance money for the purchase of a perfectly performing loan, then who did? The answer comes from irrefutable logic. We know the REMIC was ignored so the money didn’t come from the REMIC. If there was an intermediary who was acting as agent for the REMIC it had to be the Trustee for the REMIC who has no trust account or bank account to show for it. Thus the money came from another source and the money taken from investors may or may not have been used to fund the borrower’s loan in this case or more likely, a larger pool of investor funds was used as the source of funding but was NOT documented with the usual promissory note and mortgage (deed of trust) signed by the borrower.

The legal conclusion I reach is that the mountain of paperwork starting with the “origination” of the loan is worthless paper unsupported by either consideration (funding the loan) and whose recitations of facts are at variance with (1) the actual trail of money and (2) the provisions of the documents upon which Bank of America now relies requiring assignment of the loan in recordable form into the REMIC within 90 days while it was still performing. But they couldn’t assign it into the trust because (1) the trust had no money or account with which to pay for the loan and (2) this would have prevented the investment bank from trading the loan and the loan portfolios as if it were the property of the investment bank.

Thus Bank of America is attempting to appear as the new beneficiary based upon a complete lack of any chain of transactions that would make it so. And they are using the cover of BONY as “trustee” as cover for their false and fraudulent representations knowing full well that neither BONY nor the REMIC ever received a dime from investors, borrowers or anyone else and that instead the flow of money was entirely outside the sham paper transactions upon which BOA now relies.

Having covered up an incomplete unexecuted contract without funding the loan, the securitization participants proceeded to act as though the loan transaction with Quicken was real. If they relied upon the original trustee, the original trustee would have required sufficient title and other information from BOA before taking any action against the Trustor borrower.

Thus Bank of America names Reconstrust as the substitute trustee, that will “play ball” with them because Recontrust is owned and controlled by Bank of America. The challenge, as we have said, should be to the substitution of trustee as not having named an objective third party and instead being the equivalent of the beneficiary naming itself as trustee. BY definition, the new trustee is neither likely nor able to exercise due diligence and act in a responsible manner with a  fiduciary duty to the trustor and beneficiary, if they can determine the  identity of the beneficiary.

Thus any TRO or other action should be directed against the substitution of trustee as being outside the intent of the statute and violative of due process since it provides the beneficiary with unfettered ability to sell property merely on a whim.  In order to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of constitutional dude process the legislature had to show that there was a different procedure in place that would allow for the claims of all stakeholders to be heard. Even if the substitution of trustee was valid, the mere denial of the claims of the beneficiary and accusations of fraud, false assignments, and a closing at which the mortgage lien was not perfected, on a note that did not  name the proper payee nor state the same terms of repayment that the investors received when they “bought” the bogus mortgage bonds.

Bottom Line: The Pile of paperwork is worthless and does not create nor provide evidence of an actual transaction that took place wherein the named payee and lender ever fulfilled its part of the bargain — lending money to the borrower. Nor does it present even the possibility of a perfected mortgage lien. Thus foreclosure is impossible. The trustee was and is under an obligation in contested cases to file an interpleader action where the stakeholders’ claims may be heard on the merits. The primary trustee on the deed of trust may have violated its fiduciary duties by allowing the practice that it, of all entities, would or should have known was both illegal and improper. For both procedural and substantive reasons, the notice of default and notice of sale should be vacated and purged from the county records.

Cancellation of Void Instrument

Consider this an add-on to the workbook entitled Whose Lien is It Anyway also known as Volume II Workbook from Garfield Continuum Seminars.

Several Attorneys, especially from California are experimenting with a cause of action in which an instrument is cancelled — because it throws the burden of proof onto the any party claiming the validity or authenticity of the instrument.

I have been researching and analyzing this, and I think they are onto something but I would caution that your pleadings must adopt the deny and discover strategy and that you must be prepared to appeal. There is also a resurgence of tacit procuration doctrines, in which the receiver of communication has a definite duty to respond.

Here is Part I of the analysis: There will be at least one more installment:

Cancellation of Void Instrument

In most cases loans that are later subject to claims of securitization (assignment) are equally subject to cancellation. There are potential defenses to the motion or pleading demanding cancellation of the instrument; but if framed properly, the motion or pleading could be utilized as an advanced discovery tool leading to a final order. This is particularly true if a RESPA 6 (Qualified Written Request) precedes the motion or pleading.

Cancellation of a void instrument is most often directed at a Mortgage or Deed of Trust that is recorded. The elements of cancellation of an instrument include that the document is void (not just the recording). That means that what you are saying is that there is nobody in existence with any legal right, justification or excuse to attempt to use or enforce the document.

I believe that it requires the pleader to allege that the parties on the instrument are unknown to the Pleader in that there never was a financial transaction between the pleader and the the other parties mentioned and accordingly the recording of the document is at best a mistake and at worst, fraud. The element of fraud usually is involved whether you plead it or not.  However the same principles and elements might well apply to the following:

Substitution of Trustee
Notice of Default
Notice of Sale
Deed recorded as a result of foreclosure auction
Judgment for Eviction or Unlawful Detainer
Mortgage Bond
Unrecorded instruments like promissory notes, pooling and servicing agreements, and mortgage bonds, credit default swaps etc.

Another word of caution: an existing document carries a certain amount of the appearance of authenticity and validity. That appearance may rise to an informal presumption by a Judge who believes he understands the “facts” of the case. The informal presumption might be elevated by state or federal statute that may describe the presumption as rebutable, or presumed to be rebuttable. In some cases, the rebutable presumption could be elevated to an irrebutable presumption, which might mean that nobody is permitted to challenge the validity or authenticity of the document. But even irrefutable presumptions are subject to challenge if they are procured by deceit or fraud in the inducement, or fraud in the execution.

The scenario assumed here is that no loan receivable was legally created because there was no financial transaction between the homeowner and whoever is on the note, mortgage or whatever document you are seeking to cancel. Where appropriate, the pleader can allege that they deny ever having signed the instrument to that it was signed with expectation that the parties designated as lender, beneficiary or payee never completed the transaction by funding.

It is probably fair to say that presumptions are only successfully challenged if the allegations involve fraud or at least breach of presumed facts or promises. A note is evidence of an obligation and is presumed to validly recite the terms of repayment of a legitimate debt. But it also possible that the note might be evidence of the amount of the obligation, but not its terms of repayment if the facts and circumstances show that the offer was unclear or the acceptance was unclear. In the case of so-called securitized loans, accepting the allegations made by foreclosers, the offer of the loan contained terms that were never communicated to the borrower. This is because an instrument containing the terms of repayment was at material variance with the terms recited in the note. The instrument received by the lender was a mortgage bond. And most importantly the lender and the borrower were never in direct communication with one another.

The interesting effect of the substitution of the mortgage bond for a loan receivable is that the mortgage bond is NOT signed by the homeowner and is no payments of principal and interest are due to the investor except from the REMIC issuing entity that never received any enforceable documents from the homeowner.

Nor were the terms for repayment ever disclosed to the homeowner. And the compensation of the intermediaries was not disclosed as required under TILA. This constellation of factors throws doubt, at the very least, as to whether the closing was ever completed even without the the funding. The fact that the funding never took place from the designated payee or “lender” more or less seals the deal.

You must have at the ready your clear argument that if the “trust” was the lender or any of its investors then the note should have said so and there would be no argument about funding, or whether the note or mortgage were valid instruments. But Wall Street had other plans for “ownership” of the loan and substituted a series a naked nominees or straw-men for their own financial benefit and contrary to the terms expressed to the investor (pension fund) and the homeowner (borrower).

Wire Transfer instructions to the closing agents tell another story. They do not show any indication that the transfer to the closing agent was for the benefit of the designated lender, whose name was simply borrowed by Wall Street banks in order to trade the “loans” as if they were real and as if the banks owned the bonds instead of the trusts or the investors. This could only have been accomplished by NOT having the investors money travel through the REMIC trust. Hence the moment of origination of the obligation took place when the homeowner received the money from the investors through accounts that were maintained by the banks not for the REMICS but for the investors. This means that investors who believe their rights emanate from the origination documents of the trust are mistaken because of the false statements by the banks when they sold the bogus mortgage bonds.

If that is the case, their is no perfected lien, because the only mortgage or deed of trust recorded shows that it is to protect the payee “lender” (actually a naked nominee) in the vent the borrower fails to make payments and otherwise comply with the terms of the note and mortgage. But the note and mortgage relate to an unfunded transaction in which at not time was any party in the alleged securitization chain the source of funds for origination, and at not time was there ever “value received” for any assignments, bogus or otherwise, robo-signed or otherwise.

It also means that the investors must be disclosed and that for the first time the homeowners and pension funds who actually were involved in the transaction, can compare notes and decide on the balance of the obligation, if any, and what to do about it. Allowing the banks to foreclose as servicer, trustee of an asset-backed trust, or in any other capacity is unsupported by the evidence. The homeowner, as in any mortgage foreclosure, is entitled to examine the loan receivable account from the item of origination through the present. If there is agreement, then the possibility of a HAMP or other modification or settlement is possible.

Allowing the servicers to intermediate between the investors and the homeowners is letting the fox into the hen-house. If any deal is struck, then all the money they received for credit de fault swaps and insurance might be due back to the payors, since the mortgages declared in default are actually still performing loans AND at present are not secured by any perfected lien.

Cancellation of the note does not cancel the obligation. In most cases it converts the obligation from one that provided for periodic payments to a demand loan. Success of the borrower could be dangerous and lead the borrower to adopt portions of the note as evidence of the terms of repayment while challenging other parts of the recitals of the note. Cancellation of the note would also eviscerate the promise of collateral which is a separate agreement that offers the home as collateral to secure the faithful performance  of the terms of the note. Hence the mortgage or deed of trust would be collaterally canceled merely by canceling the note.

If the note is cancelled, the action can move on to cancel the mortgage instrument. In the context of securitized loans it seems unlikely that there could be any success without attacking both the mortgage, as security, and the note, as evidence of an obligation. In its simplest form, the attack would have the highest chance of success by successfully attacking the obligation. If a lender obtains a note from a borrower and then fails to fund the loan, no obligation arises. It follows logically that the recitals of the note would then be meaningless as would the recitals in the mortgage. Having achieved the goal of proving the instrument as invalid or meaningless, the presence of the instrument in the county recorder’s office would naturally cause damage to other stakeholders and should be cancelled.

If the mortgage is in fact cancelled, then the next logical step might be a quiet title action that would have the court declare the rights and obligations of the stakeholders, thus eliminating any further claims based upon off-record transactions or the absence of actions presumed to be completed as stated in the instrument itself.

It must be emphasized that this is not a collateral attack or a flank attack on the obligation based upon theories of securitization, the pooling and servicing agreement or the prospectus. cancellation of an instrument can only be successful if the party who would seek to use the instrument under attack cannot substantiate that the instrument is supported by the facts.

The facts examined usually include the issues of offer, acceptance and consideration at the time of origination of the instrument under attack. A later breach will most likely not be accepted as reasons for cancellation unless the later event is payment of a debt. Failure to return the cancelled note would be a proper subject of cancellation if the allegation was made that the the obligation was completely satisfied. The presence of the original note after such payment and refusal or inability to return the note as cancelled is reason enough for the court to enter an order canceling the note. Any attempt to sell the note or assign it would be ineffective as against the maker of the note and could subject the assignor to both civil and criminal penalties.

Both payment and origination issues arise in connection with the creation of loan documents. The originator (and any successors) must be able to establish offer, acceptance and consideration. The signature element missing from most of the document chains subjecting all deeds of trusts, notes, mortgages and assignments to cancellation is the lack of consideration.

In a money transaction, consideration means money. If money was not tendered by the originator of the documents despite the requirements to do so as set forth in the documents, the putative borrower or debtor who executed the documents is entitled to cancellation.
In the case of securitized loans, the appearance of propriety is created by reams of documents that cover up the origination documents, giving the appearance that numerous parties agreed that the proper elements were present at the time of the origination of the loan. This has successfully been used by banks to create the informal presumption that the essential elements were present at origination — offer, acceptance and consideration.

The originator (or its successors) can easily avoid cancellation by simply establishing the identity of itself as the lender, the signature of the borrower, and the proof of a cashed check, wire transfer or ACH confirmation showing the payment by the originator to the borrower. In loans subject to claims of securitization and multiple assignments, they cannot do this because the original transaction was never completed.

The issue in securitized loans is that while wire transfer instructions exist and might even mention the borrower by name and could even make reference to the originator, the instructions always include directions on where to send the surplus funds, if any exist. Those funds are clearly not to be given or sent to the originator but rather back to the undisclosed lender, which makes the transaction a table funded loan defined as illegal predatory practices under the Federal Truth in Lending Act.

If the documents named the actual lender, then the offer, acceptance and consideration could be shown as being present. Originators may not “borrow” consideration from a deal between the borrower and another party and use it to establish the consideration for the closing loan documents with the originator. That would create two obligations — the one evidenced by the note and the other evidenced by the mortgage bond, that asserts ownership of the obligation.

Borrowers and creditors are restricted by one simple fact. For every dollar of principal borrowed there must be a dollar paid on that obligation. Putting aside the issue of interest on the loan, the creditor is entitled only to one dollar for each dollar loaned, and the borrower is only required to make a payment on an obligation that is due. The obligation becomes due the moment the borrower accepts the money or the benefits of the money, regardless of whether any documents are drafted or executed. The converse is also true — the creation, and even execution of documents does not create the obligation. It is only the actual money transaction that creates the obligation.

Stripping away all other issues and documentation at the time of origination of the loan, it can fairly assumed that in most of the subject cases of “securitization” that the originator was either not a depository institution or was not acting under its charter as a depository or lending institution. If it was not a lending institution, then it loaned money to the borrower out of its borrowed or retained capital — with the source of funds coming from their own bank account. Based upon a review of hundreds of wire transfer instructions, none of the non-lending institutions was the source of funds, yet their name was used specifically recited in the note as “lender.” The accompanying disclosure documents and settlement statement describes the “lender” as being the named originator. Hence, without funds, no consideration was present. If there was an absence of consideration for the documents that were putatively executed, then the documents are worthless.

The originator in the above scenario lacked two capacities: (1) it could not enforce the note or mortgage because it lacked a loan receivable account that would suffer financial damage and (2) it could not legally execute a satisfaction, cancellation or release of the obligation or the putative lien.  Such an originator at the moment of closing is therefore missing the necessary elements to survive a request to cancel the instrument at that time or any other time. No assignments, allonges, indorsements, or even delivery of the loan documents can improve the survival of the loan documents originated, even if some assignee up the chain paid for it.

Yet at the same time that there was no consideration from the originator, there was a loan received by the borrower. If it didn’t come from the originator, and the money actually arrived, the question is properly asked to identify the source of funds and whether that party had the capacity to enforce collection of the loan and could execute a release or satisfaction or cancellation of the note and mortgage. Here is where the hairs split. The source of funds is owed the money regardless of whether there was a note or mortgage or settlement documents or disclosures — simply because they do have a loan receivable that would be damaged by non-payment. But that loan receivable is not supported by any documentation that one would ordinarily find in a mortgage loan.

The creation of documents reciting a false transaction, “borrowing” the fact that the homeowner did receive funds from another source, does NOT create a second obligation. Hence the note, mortgage (Deed of trust) and obligation presumed in favor of the named originator must be cancelled.

Since the sources of funds are neither the owner of the loan, the payee on the note, the lender identified on the note, mortgage and settlement documents, they lack the power to enforce any of those documents and secondly, lack the power to cancel, release or satisfy a note or mortgage on which they are not the payee or secured party. Hence the fact that the borrower received funds gives rise to a demand obligation against the borrower to repay the loan. All the funding source needs is evidence of the payment from their bank account and the receipt by the borrower.

Still Pretending the Servicers Are Legitimate

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment:

I keep waiting for someone to notice. We all know that the foreclosures were defective. We all know that in many cases independent auditors found that strangers to the transaction submitted credit bids that were accepted by the auctioneer, and that in the non-judicial states where substitutions of trustees are always used to replace an independent trustee with one owned or controlled by the “new creditor” the “credit bid” is accepted by the creditor’s agent even if the trustee has notice from the borrower that neither the substitution of trustee nor the foreclosure are valid, that the borrower denies the debt, denies the default and denies the right of the “new creditor” to do anything.

In the old days when we followed the law, the trustee would have only one option: file an interpleader lawsuit in court claiming two stakeholders and that the trustee is not a stakeholder and should be reimbursed for fees and costs. Today instead of an interpleader, it is a foreclosure because the “creditor” is holding all the cards.

So why is anyone surprised that modifications are rejected when in the past the debtor and borrower always worked things out because foreclosure was not as good as a work-out?

Why do the deeds found to be lacking in consideration with false credit bids still remain on the books? Why hasn’t the homeowner been notified that he still owns the property and has the right to possession?

And why are we so sure that the original mortgage has any more validity than the false documents to support fraudulent foreclosures? Is it because the borrower’s signature is on it? OK. If we are going to look at the borrower’s signature then why do we not look at the rest of the document and the facts alleged to have occurred in those documents. The note says that the payee is the lender. We all know that isn’t true. The mortgage says the property is collateral for payment to the payee on the note. What first year law student would fail to spot that if the note recited a loan transaction that never occurred, then the mortgage securing the payments on the false transaction is no better than the note?

So if the original transaction was defective and the servicer derives its status or power from the origination documents, then who is the servicer and why is he standing in your living room demanding payment and declaring you in default?

If any reader of this blog somehow convinced another reader of the blog to sign a note and mortgage, would the note and mortgage be valid without any actual financial transaction. No. In fact, the attempt to collect on the note where I didn’t make the loan might be considered fraud or even grand theft. And rightfully so. I am told that in some states the Judges say it is the absence of anyone else making an effort to collect on the note that proves the standing of the party seeking to enforce it. Really?

This sounds like a business plan. A lends B money. B signs papers indicating the loan came from C and C gets the mortgage. B is delinquent by a month and having lost his job he abandons the property. D comes in and seeks to enforce the mortgage and note and nobody else is around. The title record is still clear of any foreclosure activity. D says he has an assignment and produces a false forged assignment. Nobody else shows up. THAT is because the parties in the securitization chain are using MERS instead of the public record title registry so they didn’t get any notice. D gets the foreclosure after substituting trustees in a non-judicial state or doing absolutely nothing in a judicial state. The property is auctioned and D submits a credit bid which is accepted by the auctioneer. The clerk or trustee issues D a deed upon foreclosure and D immediately transfers the property to XYZ corporation that he formed the day before. XYZ sells the property to E for $300,000. E pays D $60,000 down payment and gets a mortgage from ABC Lending Corp. for the other $240,000. ABC Lending Corp. sells the note and mortgage into the secondary market where it is sliced and diced into parcels that are allocated into one or more REMIC special purpose vehicles.

Now B comes back and finds out that he was never foreclosed on by his lender. C wakes up and says they never released the mortgage. D took the money and ran, never to be heard from again. The investors in the REMIC trusts are told they bought an invalid mortgage or one in which the mortgage has second priority instead of first priority. E, who bought the property with $60,000 of his own money is now at risk, and when he looks at his title policy and makes a claim he is directed to the schedules of exclusions and exceptions that specifically cover this event. So no title carrier is going to pay. In fact, the title company might concede that B still owns the property and that C has the first mortgage on it, but that leaves E with two mortgages instead of one. The two mortgages together total around $500,000, a price that E’s property will never reach in 20 years. Sound familiar?

Welcome to USA property law as it was summarily ignored, changed and enforced for the past 10 years? Why? Especially when it turns out that the investment broker that sold the mortgage bonds of the REMIC knew about the whole story all along. Why are we letting this happen?


Discussion Started Between Livinglies and AZ Attorney General Tom Horne

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment:

Dear Kathleen,

Thank you very much for taking my call this morning.

The question that Neil F. Garfield, Esq. had asked AZ Attorney General Tom Horne at Darrell Blomberg’s meeting was:

Why is the Arizona Attorney General not prosecuting the banks and servicers for corruption and racketeering by submitting false credit bids from non-creditors at foreclosure auctions?

Please feel free to browse Mr. Garfield’s web blog, www.LivingLies.wordpress.com as you may find much of the research and many of the articles to be relevant and of interest.

Mr. Garfield wishes the following comments and observations to be added, in order to clarify the question being asked.

It should probably be noted that in my own research and from the research from at least two dozen other lawyers whose practice concentrates in real property and foreclosures have all reached the same conclusion.  The submission of a credit bid by a stranger to the transaction is a fraudulent act.  A credit bid is only permissible in the event that the party seeking to offer the bid meets the following criteria:

1.  The homeowner borrower owes money to the alleged creditor

2.  The money that is owed to the alleged creditor arises out of a transaction in which the homeowner borrower agreed to the power of sale regarding that debt

3.  Any other creditor would be as much a stranger to the transaction as a non-creditor

Our group is also in agreement that:

4.  Acceptance of the credit bid is an ultra vires act.

5.  The deed issued in foreclosure under such circumstances is a wild deed requiring the title registrar to attach a statement from the office of the title registrar (for example Helen Purcell) stating that the deed does not meet the requirements of statute and therefore does not meet the requirements for recording.

6.  In the event that nobody else is permitted to bid, the auction violates Arizona statutes.

And we arrived at the following conclusions:

7.  In the event that there is no cash bid and the only “bid” was accepted as a cash bid from either a non-creditor or a creditor whose debt is not secured by the power of sale, no sale has legally occurred.

8.  The applicable statutes preventing the corruption of the title chain by such illegal means include the filing of false documents, grand theft, and evasion of the payment of required fees.

9.  This phenomenon is extremely wide spread and based upon surveys conducted by our office and dozens of other offices (including an independent audit of the title registry of San Francisco county) strongly suggest that the vast majority of foreclosures in Arizona resulted in illegal auctions, illegal acceptance of a bid, and illegal issuance of a deed on foreclosure-which resulted in many cases in illegal evictions.

10.  Federal and State-equivalent RICO may also apply, as well as Federal mail fraud which should be referred to the US Attorney.

CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO THE NON-JUDICIAL SALE STATUTE AS APPLIED.

It should also be noted that all the same attorneys agreed that the use of an instrument called “Substitution of Trustee” was improper in most cases in that it removed a trustee owing a duty to both the debtor and the creditor and replaced the old trustee with an entity owned or controlled by the creditor.

This is the equivalent of allowing the creditor to appoint itself as Trustee.

In virtually all cases in which a securitization claim was involved in the attempted foreclosure the Substitution of Trustee was used exactly in the manner described in this paragraph.  This method of applying the powers set forth in the Deed of Trust is obviously unconstitutional as applied.

Constitutional scholars agree that the legislature has wide discretion in substituting one form of due process for another.  In this case, non-judicial sale was permitted on the premise that an independent trustee would exercise the ministerial duties of what had previously been a burden on the judiciary.

However, the ability of any creditor or non-creditor to claim the status of being the successor payee on a promissory note, being the secured party on the Deed of Trust, and having the right to substitute trustees does not confer on such a party the right to appoint itself as the trustee, auctioneer, and signatory on the Deed upon foreclosure nor to have submitted a credit bid.

We are very interested in your reply.  If your office has any cogent reasons for disagreement with the above analysis, we would like to “hear back from you” as you promised at Mr. Blomberg’s meeting 22 days ago.  We would encourage you to stay in touch with Mr. Blomberg or myself with regard to your progress in this matter in as much as we are considering a constitutional challenge not to the statute, but to the application of the statute on the above stated grounds.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Sincerely

Neil F Garfield esq

licensed in Florida #229318

www.LivingLies.wordpress.com

Recording and Auctions: AZ Maricopa County Recorder Meets with Homeowners

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Phoenix, May 23, 2012: Last night we had the pleasure of meeting with Helen Purcell, Maricopa County Recorder, after having met with Tom Horne, AZ Attorney General and Ken Bennett, the AZ Secretary of State on issues relating to mortgages, robo-signing, notary fraud, etc.  Many thanks again to Darrell Blomberg whose persistence and gentle demeanor produced these people at a meeting downtown. See upcoming events for Darrell on the Events tab above.

The meeting was video recorded and plenty of people were taking notes. Purcell described the administrative process of challenging documents. By submitting a complaint apparently in any form, if you identify the offending document with particularity and state your grounds, again with particularity, the Recorder’s office is duty bound to review it and make a determination as to whether the document should be “corrected” by an instrument prepared by her office that is attached to the document.

If your complaint refers to deficiencies on the face of the document, the recorder’s office ought to take action. One of the problems here is that the office handles electronic recording via contracts who sign a Memorandum of Understanding with her office and become “trusted submitters.” Title companies, law offices, and banks are among the trusted sources. It appears to me that the mere submission of these documents in electronic form gives rise to the presumption that they are valid even if the notarization is plainly wrong and defective.

If the recording office refuses to review the document, a lawsuit in mandamus would apply to force the recorder to do their job. If they refer matters to the County Attorney’s office, the County Attorney should NOT be permitted to claim attorney client privilege to block the right of the person submitting the document or objection from know the basis of the denial. You have 10 years to challenge a document in terms of notary acknowledgement which means that you can go back to May 24, 2002, as of today.

One thing that readers should keep in mind is that invalidating the notarization does not, in itself, invalidate the documents. Arizona is a race-notice state though which means the first one to the courthouse wins the race. So if you successfully invalidate the notarization then that effectively removes the offending document as a recorded document to be considered in the chain of title. Any OTHER document recorded that was based upon the recording of the offending document would therefore NOT be appropriately received and recorded by the recording office.

So a Substitution of Trustee that was both robo-signed and improperly notarized could theoretically be corrected and then recorded. But between the time that the recorder’s correction is filed (indicating that the document did not meet the standards for recording) and the time of the new amended or corrected document, properly signed and notarized is recorded, there could be OTHER instruments recorded that would make things difficult for a would-be foreclosure by a pretender lender.

The interesting “ringer” here is that the person who signed the original document may no longer be able to sign it because they are unavailable, unemployed, or unwilling to again participate in robosigning. And the notary is going to be very careful about the attestation, making sure they are only attesting to the validity of the signature and not to the power of the person signing it.

It seems that there is an unwritten policy (we are trying to get the Manual through Darrell’s efforts) whereby filings from homeowners who can never file electronically, are reviewed for content. If they in any way interfere with the ability of the pretender lender to foreclose they are sent up to the the County Attorney’s office who invariably states that this is a non-consensual lien even if the word lien doesn’t appear on the document. I asked Ms. Purcell how many documents were rejected if they were filed by trusted submitters. I stated that I doubted if even one in the last month could be cited and that the same answer would apply going back years.

So the county recorder’s office is rejecting submissions by homeowners but not rejecting submissions from banks and certain large law firms and title companies (which she said reduced in number from hundreds to a handful).

What the pretenders are worried about of course, is that anything in the title chain that impairs the quality of title conveyed or to be covered by title insurance would be severely compromised by anything that appears in the title record BEFORE they took any action.

If a document upon which they were relying, through lying, is then discounted by the recording office to be NOT regarded as recorded then any correction after the document filed by the homeowner or anyone else might force them into court to get rid of the impediment. That would essentially convert the non-judicial foreclosure to a judicial foreclosure in which the pretenders would need to plead and prove facts that they neither know or have any evidence to support, most witnesses now being long since fired in downsizing.

The other major thing that Ms Purcell stated was that as to MERS, she was against it from the beginning, she thought there was no need for it, and that it would lead to breaks in the chain of title which in her opinion did happen. When asked she said she had no idea how these breaks could be corrected. She did state that she thought that many “mistakes” occurred in the MERS system, implying that such mistakes would not have occurred if the parties had used the normal public recording system for assignments etc.

And of course you know that this piece of video, while it supports the position taken on this blog for the last 5 years, avoids the subject of why the MERS system was created in the first place. We don’t need to speculate on that anymore.

We know that the MERS system was used as a cloak for multiple sales and assignments of the same loan. The party picked as a “designated hitter” was inserted by persons with access to the system through a virtually non-existence security system in which an individual appointed themselves as the authorized signor for MERS or some member of MERS. We know that these people had no authorized written  instructions from any person in MERS nor in the members organization to execute documents and that if they wanted to, they could just as easily designated any member or any person or any business entity to be the “holder” or “investor.”

The purpose of MERS was to put a grand glaze over the fact that the monetary transactions were actually off the grid of the claimed securitization. The single transaction was between the investor lenders whose money was kept in a trust-like account and then sued to fund mortgages with the homeowner borrower. At not time was that money ever in the chain of securitization.

The monetary transaction is both undocumented and unsecured. At no time was any transaction, including the original note and mortgage (or deed of trust) reciting true facts relating to the loan by the payee of the note or the secured party under the mortgage or deed of trust. And at no time was the payee or secured holder under the mortgage or deed of trust ever expecting to receive any money (other than fees for pretending to be the “bank”) nor did they ever receive any money. At no time did MERS or any of its members handle, disburse or otherwise act even as a conduit for the funding of the loan.

Hence the mortgage or deed of trust secured an obligation to the payee on the note who was not expecting to receive any money nor did they receive any money. The immediate substitution of servicer for the originator to receive money shows that in nearly every securitization case. Any checks or money accidentally sent to the originator under the borrower’s mistaken impression that the originator was the lender (because of fraudulent misrepresentations) were immediately turned over to another party.

The actual party who made the loan was a large group of institutional investors (pension funds etc.) whose money had been illegally pooled into a PONZI scheme and covered over by an entirely fake and fraudulent securitization chain. In my opinion putting the burden of proof on the borrower to defend against a case that has not been alleged, but which should be (or dismissed) is unfair and a denial of due process.

In my opinion you stand a much greater chance of attacking the mortgage rather than the obligation, whether or not it is stated on the note. Admitting the liability is not the same as admitting the note represents the deal that the borrower agreed to. Counsel should object immediately, when the pretender lender through counsel states that the note is or contains a representation of the deal reached by the borrower and the lender. Counsel should state that borrower denies the recitations in the note but admits the existence of an obligation to a lender whose identity was and remains concealed by the pretender in the foreclosure action. The matter is and should be put at issue. If the Judge rules against you, after you deny the validity of the note and the enforceability and validity of the note and mortgage, then he or she is committing reversible error even if the borrower would or probably would lose in the end as the Judge would seem to predict.

Trial is the only way to find out. If the pretenders really can prove the money is owed to them, let them prove it. If that money is theirs, let them prove it. If there is nobody else who would receive that money as the real creditor, let the pretender be subject to discovery. And they MUST prove it because the statute ONLY allows the actual creditor to submit a “credit bid” at auction in lieu of cash. Any auction in which both the identity of the creditor and the amount due was not established was and remains in my opinion subject to attack with a motion to strike the deed on foreclosure (probably on many grounds) based upon failure of consideration, and anyone who bids on the property with actual cash, should be considered the winner of the auction.

DON’T Leave Your Money on the Table

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment:

The number of people passing up the administrative review process is appallingly low, considering the fact that many if not most homeowners are leaving money on the table — money that should rightfully be paid to them from wrongful foreclosure activity (from robo-signing to outright fraud by having non-creditors take title and possession).

The reason is simple: nobody understands the process including lawyers who have been notoriously deficient in their knowledge of administrative procedures, preferring to stick with the more common judicial context of the courtroom in which many lawyers have demonstrated an appalling lack of skill and preparation, resulting in huge losses to their clients.

The fact is, administrative procedures are easier than court procedures especially where you have mandates like this one. The forms of complaints and evidence are much more informal. It is much harder for the offending party to escape on a procedural technicality without the cause having been heard on the merits. 

The banks were betting on two thngs when they agreed to this review process — that people wouldn’t use it and that even if they used it they would fail to state the obvious: that the money wasn’t due or in default, that it was paid and that only a complete accounting from all parties in the securitization chain could determine whether the original debt was (a) ever secured and (b) still existence. They knew and understood that most people would assume the claim was valid because they knew that the loan was funded and that they had executed papers that called for payments that were not made by the borrower.

But what if the claim isn’t valid? What if the loan was funded entirely outside the papers they signed at closing? What if the payments were not due? What if the payments were not due to this creditor? And what if the payments actually were made on the account and the supposed creditor doesn’t exist any more? Why are you assuming that the paperwork at closing was any more real than the fraudulent paperwork they submitted during foreclosure?

People tend to think that if money exchanged hands that the new creditor would simply slip on the shoes of a secured creditor. Not so. If the secured debt is paid and not purchased then the new debt is unsecured even if the old was secured. But I repeat here that in my opinion the original debt was probably not secured which is to say there was no valid mortgage, note and could be no valid foreclosure without a valid mortgage and default.

Wrongful foreclosure activity includes by definition wrongful auctions and results. Here are some probable pointers about that part of the foreclosure process that were wrongful:

1. Use the fraudulent, forged robosigned documents as corroboration to your case, not the point of the case itself.

2. Deny that the debt was due, that there was any default, that the party iniating the foreclosure was the creditor, that the party iniating the foreclosure had no right to represent the creditor and didn’t represnet the creditor, etc.

3. State that the subsitution of trustee was an unauthorized document if you are in a nonjudicial state.

4. State that the substituted trustee, even if the substitution of trustee was deemed properly executed, named trustees that were not qualified to serve in that they were controlled or owned entities of the new stranger showing up on the scene as a purported “creditor.”

5. State that even if the state deemed that the right to intiate a foreclosure existed with obscure rights to enforce, the pretender lender failed to establish that it was either the lender or the creditor when it submitted the credit bid.

6. State that the credit bid was unsupported by consideration.

7. State that you still own the property legally.

8. State that if the only bid was a credit bid and the credit bid was invalid, accepted perhaps because the auctioneer was a controlled or paid or owned party of the pretender lender, then there was no bid and the house is still yours with full rights of possession.

9. The deed issued from the sale is a nullity known by both the auctioneer and the party submitting the “credit bid.”

10. Demand to see all proof submitted by the other side and all demands for proof by the agency, and whether the agency independently investigated the allegations you made. 

 If you lose, appeal to the lowest possible court with jurisdiction.

Many Eligible Borrowers Passing up Foreclosure Reviews

By Julie Schmit

Months after the first invitations were mailed, only a small percentage of eligible borrowers have accepted a chance to have their foreclosure cases checked for errors and maybe win restitution.

By April 30, fewer than 165,000 people had applied to have their foreclosures checked for mistakes — about 4% of the 4.1 million who received letters about the free reviews late last year, according to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The reviews were agreed to by 14 major mortgage servicers and federal banking regulators in a settlement last year over alleged foreclosure abuses.

So few people have responded that another mailing to almost 4 million households will go out in early June, reminding them of the July 31 deadline to request a review, OCC spokesman Bryan Hubbard says.

If errors occurred, restitution could run from several hundred dollars to more than $100,000.

The reviews are separate from the $25 billion mortgage-servicing settlement that state and federal officials reached this year.

Anyone who requests a review will get one if they meet certain criteria. Mortgages had to be in the foreclosure process in 2009 or 2010, on a primary residence, and serviced by one of the 14 servicers or their affiliates, including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank and Wells Fargo.

More information is at independentforeclosurereview.com.

Even though letters went to more than 4 million households, consumer advocates say follow-up advertising has been ineffective, leading to the low response rate.

Many consumers have also grown wary of foreclosure scams and government foreclosure programs, says Deborah Goldberg of the National Fair Housing Alliance.

“The effort is being made” to reach people, says Paul Leonard, the mortgage servicers’ representative at the Financial Services Roundtable, a trade group. “It’s hard to say why people aren’t responding.”

With this settlement, foreclosure cases will be reviewed one by one by consultants hired by the servicers but monitored by regulators.

With the $25 billion mortgage settlement, borrowers who lost homes to foreclosure will be eligible for payouts from a $1.5 billion fund.

That could mean 750,000 borrowers getting about $2,000 each, federal officials have said.

For more information on that, go to nationalmortgagesettlement.com.

Bringing in the Clowns Through Breach of Fiduciary Duties

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary CLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT

CUSTOMER SERVICE 520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment: In my many conversations with both attorneys and pro se litigants they frequently express intense frustration about those invisible relationships and entities that permeate the entire mortgage model starting in the 1990′s and continuing to the present day, every day court is in session.

I think they are right. This article takes it as given, whether the courts wish to recognize it or not, that the parties at the closing table with the homeowner were all fiduciaries and included all those who were getting fees paid out of the closing proceeds — in other words paid out either the homeowner’s hapless down payment (worthless the moment it was tendered) or the proceeds of a loan (undocumented as to the source of the loan and documented falsely as to the creditor and the terms of repayment.

This article also takes it as a given, whether the courts are ready to recognize it or not, that the parties at the closing table with the investors who were the source of funds pooled or not were all fiduciaries and included all those who were getting fees paid out of the closing proceeds — in other words paid out either the hopeless plunge into an abyss with no loans purchased or funded until long after the money was in “escrow” with the investment banker in exchange for a completely worthless mortgage backed security without any mortgages backing the security.

But the interesting fact is that while some of the parties were known to the investor, and some of the parties were known to the homeowners, the investor did not know the parties at the closing table with the homeowner; and the borrower did not know the parties at the closing table with the investor.

In point of fact, the borrower did not even know there was a table or an investor or a table funded loan until long after closing, if ever. Remember that for years MERS, the  servicers and others brought foreclosures that are still final (but subject to challenge) while they vigorously denied the very existence of a pool or any investors.

While this is interesting from the perspective of Reg Z that states that a pattern of table-funded loans is to be regarded as “predatory” per se, which the courts have refused to enforce or even recognize, I have a larger target — all the participants in the securitization chain, each of whom actually claims to have been some sort of escrow agent giving rise to a fiduciary relationship per se — meaning that the cause of action is simple and cannot be barred by the economic loss rule because they had no contract with the homeowners and probably had no contracts with the investors.

Again, I warn about the magic bullet. there isn’t one. But this one comes close because by including these fiduciaries by name from your combo title and securitization report and by description where the fake securitization was dubbed “private label” they are all brought into the courtroom and they are all subject to a simple action for accounting which can be amended later to allege damages, or if you think you have enough information already, state your damages.

Based upon my research of the fiduciary relationship there are no limits anywhere if the action is not based upon a direct contract, and some states and culled that down to a “no limit’ doctrine (see Florida cases) except in product liability or similar cases.

The allegation is simply that the homeowner bought a loan product that was known to be defective, poorly documented, if at all, and subject to a shell game (MERS) in which the homeowner would never know the identity of the chosen creditor until the homeowner was maneuvered into foreclosure. There are several potential channels of damages that can be alleged.

Lawyers are encouraged to do about 30 minutes of research into fiduciary liability in your state and match up the elements of the cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty with the securitization documents that either has already been admitted or that has been discovered.

Go through the PSA and look at it from the point of view of assumed agency and escrowing or holding documents, receivables, notes, money and mortgages. Each one of those is low hanging fruit for a breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit.

And of course any party specifically named as a “trustee” whether a trust exists or not raises the issue of trust duties which are fiduciary as well, whether it is the trustee of a “pool” or the trustee on the deed of trust (or more likely the alleged substitution trustee on the DOT).



ANTI-DEFICIENCY STATUTE UPHELD IN ARIZONA

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary CLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT

M&I Marshall v Mueller Anti-Deficiency Statute upheld CV100804

One of the scare tactics that the Banks are using to confuse homeowners is that they will come after the homeowner after foreclosure claiming that they are entitled to a Judgment for the deficiency — the difference between the amount recovered from the foreclosed property and the amount they alleged was due. This case from Arizona squarely comes up in favor of the borrower. The mere intention to use the property as their principal dwelling is sufficient to invoke the statutory protection. Check the statutes of your state and consult an attorney before you assume you are protected.

But the protection is broader than that as a practical matter. The last thing the usual pretender lender wants to do is start a lawsuit where they are subject to the requirements of pleading a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. That is because they need to prove each and every allegation. And it is because they would be subject to discovery requests tracing the money on ALL transactions, direct or indirect affecting the balance due from the borrower. In virtually all cases it would be found that the amount claimed by the forecloser is different than what they reported to investors. THAT means the entire foreclosure is wrongful.

In addition, the great likelihood is that the money trail will lead to an inescapable conclusion — the documents in the securitization chain refer to transactions that never occurred. Each “endorsement” or transfer or sale is a document that refers to a transaction.  The transaction is the sale of the note and mortgage. The transaction did not occur if nobody actually paid for it. And they didn’t pay for it because the consideration was supplied long ago by the investors whose money was used to fund the mortgage. Thus each document in the claimed securitization chain refers to a transaction that did not ever happen and can’t happen.

(And the reason they didn’t do it right is because they needed to have some colorable right to claim rights to the loan even though they were only intermediaries. Their purpose was selling the loan multiple times, a process that would have been impossible if the investors were given the documents called for by the PSA. They needed a gap in time between the time of the closing with the borrower and the time that the actual transfer documents were created in favor of the investors or the investor pool).

And THAT in turn means that the substitution of trustee in non-judicial states is bogus. If the transaction transferring the loan never occurred then the documents of transfer are worth less than the paper they are written on, and the forgery, robo-signing and fabrication of documents is almost besides the point. If the substitution of trustee is bogus then all actions conducted by that “trustee” are equally bogus. That includes foreclosure, eviction etc.

NOTE: The same logic applies to the origination of the loan. In most cases the documents refer to a transaction that never occurred —- the loan of money to the borrower BY THE PARTY NAMED ON THE NOTE. At the very least, this fact alone should be sufficient to remove the foreclosure from non-judicial procedure and require the “creditor” to foreclose judicially. In court, parole evidence would allow the borrower to show that the “creditor” is relying upon a faulty transaction. At most, this fact might be sufficient to invalidate the mortgage lien and perhaps the note itself, leaving a naked obligation for which there is no documentation and for which there is obviously no collateral.

DO YOU DARE ISSUE A WARRANTY DEED OR ANY DEED WITHOUT LIABILITY?

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

The inescapable conclusion at this point, is that title on more than 100 million real estate transactions is at the very least in doubt and quite probably corrupted. In legalese that would be expressed as clouded, unmarketable (i.e., you can’t sell it or finance it, because nobody will take it), defective or fatally defective. The only exceptions I can think of are those deals where raw land has been purchased from a long-standing owner with no debt attached to the land or where a home is purchased or refinanced where the last transaction is twenty years ago. Most people are unaware that they are sitting on shifting sands instead of a solid foundation — where title is properly recorded in the recording office of the county in which the property is located.

Yet people and institutions are issuing instruments fraught with liability and the high probability that the transaction — and the representations contained in the instrument they signed —- will be the subject of litigation later when someone tries to clear title or collect damages. Here are some examples:

  1. A Warranty Deed, required in most transactions, requires the person signing to (a) attest and prove they are who they say they are (b) that they or the party whom they represent has title (usually fee simple absolute) and (c) that if they are signing as an agent, they have provided proof (usually recorded with the deed in properly recordable form) of their authority. The signor is promising, in exchange for the consideration paid, that if this Warranty Deed turns out to be challenged by anyone, they will defend the challenge and pay damages if they lose. Reliance on the title company, mortgage banker, mortgage lender or anyone else is not a defense although the signor could cross claim against those people and bring them into the lawsuit. The point is that the cost of litigating these cases could rise into tens of thousands of dollars. The cost of losing could rise into hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions of dollars. 
  2. A “Special Warranty Deed” might have some language of limitations that SHOULD put the buyer on notice but most people rely upon the title or closing agent, or their lawyer (if they have one) to make sure that the deed gives them the title they thought they were getting. This too could give rise to litigation because of representations at closing, representations in the title commitment or policy etc.
  3. A Satisfaction of Mortgage requires the person signing to (a) attest and prove they are who they say they are (b) that they or the party whom they represent is the creditor and is the owner of the rights under the mortgage or deed of trust and (c) that if they are signing as an agent, they have provided proof (usually recorded with the Satisfaction in properly recordable form) of their authority. The signor is promising (unless someone played withe the wording), in exchange for the consideration paid, that if this Satisfaction turns out to be challenged by anyone, they will defend the challenge and pay damages if they lose. Reliance on the title company, mortgage banker, mortgage lender or anyone else is not a defense although the signor could cross claim against those people and bring them into the lawsuit. The point is that the cost of litigating these cases could rise into tens of thousands of dollars. The cost of losing could rise into hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions of dollars. 
  4. A Release and Reconveyance is the same as a Satisfaction of Mortgage. So whether you received a satisfaction of mortgage or a release and reconveyance, your assumption that the prior lien was paid off and is now officially satisfied and removed from the records as encumbrance on the land may be, and I think, probably is wrong. We have seen several cases here at livinglies where the wrong party (Ocwen in one case) took the oney issued the Satisfaction and then refused to either give back the money or provide any additional information even though it is now apparent that they were not the creditor, not he owner of the mortgage and had no authority to issue the satisfaction. 
  5. A Trustees Deed on Foreclosure is much the same as a Warranty Deed. Potential Trustee liability here is huge. It requires the person signing to (a) attest and prove they are who they say they are (b) that they or the party whom they represent is the Trustee or “substitute Trustee” (see below) and is the owner of the rights under the mortgage or deed of trust, (c) that if they are signing as an agent, they have provided proof (usually recorded with the Satisfaction in properly recordable form) of their authority and (d) that they are in fact the Trustee and that they have performed the statutory duties of due diligence that is required of a Trustee under a Deed of Trust. The signor is promising (unless someone played withe the wording), in exchange for the consideration paid, that if this Deed turns out to be challenged by anyone, they will defend the challenge and pay damages if they lose. Reliance on the “beneficiary” who usually comes out of nowhere, “lender” who also usually comes out of nowhere, title company, mortgage banker, mortgage lender or anyone else is not a defense although the signor could cross claim against those people and bring them into the lawsuit. The point is that the cost of litigating these cases could rise into tens of thousands of dollars. The cost of losing could rise into hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions of dollars. The banks don’t actually worry about this because most “Trustees” are “substitute Trustees” in which a substitution was filed given apparent authority to a new “Trustee” who is not an independent title agent or some similar entity but rather an agent that is in the foreclosure business with the bank that has inserted itself into the transaction as a “pretender lender.” Due diligence by the Trustee would have revealed most robosigning and other fraudulent practices, but due diligence, contrary to the requirements of statute, was never performed because they were no longer taking the orders from the legislature. They were skipping over their statutory duties and taking orders from a party who is merely alleged to be the lender even though it is not the same party as stated on the original note and mortgage ( deed of trust).
  6. Substitution of Trustee: Until securitization came into play it was a rare occurrence that the trustee would be substituted. The Trustee on teh Deed of Trfust would simply be given instructions by the payee on the note and the named secured party in the mortgage) deed of trust) to commence default and dforeclosure proceedigns. But now in virtually every foreclosure there is first a “substitution of trustee’probably because the original trustee would perform the due diligence required under statute and revealed potential problems which would have held up or cancelled the foreclosure. requires the person signing to (a) attest and prove they are who they say they are (b) that they or the party whom they represent is the creditor and is the owner of the rights under the mortgage or deed of trust and (c) that if they are signing as an agent, they have provided proof (usually recorded with the Satisfaction in properly recordable form) of their authority. The signor is promising (unless someone played withe the wording) that if this Substitution of Trustee turns out to be challenged by anyone, they will defend the challenge and pay damages if they lose. Reliance on the “beneficiary” who usually comes out of nowhere, “lender” who also usually comes out of nowhere, title company, mortgage banker, mortgage lender or anyone else is not a defense although the signor could cross claim against those people and bring them into the lawsuit. In many cases the substance of the substitution is that the “new” beneficiary is in effect appointing itself or its agents who promise to do their bidding instead of using the original Trustee or someone else who take their duties seriously. The point is that the cost of litigating these cases could rise into tens of thousands of dollars. The cost of losing could rise into hundreds of thousands of dollars, or even millions of dollars. The banks don’t actually worry about this because most “Trustees” are “substitute Trustees” in which a substitution was filed given apparent authority to a new “Trustee” who is not an independent title agent or some similar entity but rather an agent that is in the foreclosure business with the bank that has inserted itself into the transaction as a “pretender lender.” Due diligence by the Trustee would have revealed most robosigning and other fraudulent practices, but due diligence, contrary to the requirements of statute, was never performed because they were no longer taking the orders from the legislature. They were skipping over their statutory duties and taking orders from a party who is merely alleged to be the lender even though it is not the same party as stated on the original note and mortgage ( deed of trust).

There are many other documents that fall within the same level of analysis like the Notice of Default (which comes from the alleged authority of the  Substitute Trustee, based upon information from what is probably an undisclosed source, the Notice of Sale (which appears right on its face, but is subject to the same analysis as to the signor, and other documents.

The Bottom Line is that homeowners and institutions alike are facing potential litigation and liability as the years roll on, with few if any witnesses to back them up and in the case of homeowners precious little in the way of resources to fight off the litigation.

Check with a real property and litigation attorney before you take any action based upon what you see here. They should be licensed in the county in which the property is located.

EXAMPLE OF PLEADING TRAPPING PRETENDERS IN THEIR OWN LIES

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

  1. Using the exhibits filed by the respondents the confusion created by the respondents, the on-record conduct of the Respondents in arrogant defiance and contempt of the this Court’s discharge injunction, and the breaks in chain of title that are self-evident (and clearly shown below), leads to the inescapable conclusion that the application for relief from stay was faked, the foreclosure sale was faked, the deed issued was improper, and the eviction was wrongful even without the issues of forgery and fabrication.
  1. The entire series of events caused by the respondents is based upon the substitution of an illegal notary clause for an actual affidavit with sworn testimony from an actual person with actual knowledge verifying the authority of the signatories and the authenticity of the documents. California notaries are expressly forbidden to attest to the authority of an individual for use in another state. Respondents nevertheless regularly use this device to create the appearance of authority when none exists. They did so when they used the name of Chevy Chase Bank, a defunct bank to apply for relief from stay, and they did so in connection with several key documents without which they would have no color of title to property or loans for which it is clear that had no actual authority or title.
  1. But for this sleight of hand trick by the Respondents, none of the actions to seek relief from stay in Petitioner’s bankruptcy and to collect on a debt that was not due to them, none of the actions for foreclosures, sale or possession would have or could have occurred. The following chain of title report is taken from the Respondents’ own exhibits with reference thereto.

4. Careful scrutiny of the chain disclosed below reveals the unlawful intermediation of parties that were at best conduits but who masqueraded as real parties in interest for the express purpose and intent of stealing from the Petitioner and the undisclosed creditor-investor, who probably still does not know what transpired in these actions. The result was a substantial loss to both the Petitioner and the other creditors of the Petitioner who could have otherwise been paid.

  1. When Chevy Chase applied for relief from stay, it was at best a bookkeeper.  It provided no proof of its own authority as to the decision to foreclose or even to establish the status of the debt. It was presumably receiving instructions from the “creditor.” The “creditor” from whom it was receiving such instructions may be presumed from the actions of the respondents to have been the Respondents themselves, who inserted themselves into the process without any right, justification, excuse or authority. Hence the application for relief from stay was fraudulently filed and procured.
  1. DEED OF TRUST: (EXHIBIT B)

6.1.                  GRANTOR/TRUSTOR: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

6.2.                  GRANTEE: NORTH AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY

6.3.                  BENEFICIARY: MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., “NOMINEE” FOR FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION

6.4.                  LENDER: FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION

  1. TRANSFER OF SERVICING RIGHTS 8/29/06 (EXHIBIT C)

7.1.                  ASSIGNOR: FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION

7.2.                  CHEVY CHASE BANK, F.S.B.

  1. NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE:  (EXHIBIT C -10)

8.1.                  ASSIGNOR: MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., “NOMINEE” FOR FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION.

8.1.1. Signed (allegedly) by Pamela Campbell as “Assistant Secretary” of MERS while she was employed by Cal-Western Reconveyance who is not and was not a member of MERS.

8.1.2. Campbell’s name has been widely cited as a known robo-signed signature affixed by numerous different people, as can be seen by the different signatures on sets of documents discovered in Maricopa County, corroborated similar reports from California and other states.

8.1.3. Petitioner has learned that whoever signed Pamela Campbell’s name must have used the user ID and password of someone other than Pamela Campbell — Probably someone from US Bank, who was by pretense asserting itself as the creditor.

8.1.4. Based upon Published information in cases, media and the MERS website, these facts would strongly indicate that the substitution of trustee document was neither prepared nor executed by anyone employed by Cal-Western and was probably prepared and executed by one of the many servicer providers that were in the business of fabrication and execution of false documents.

8.2.                  FIRST MAGNUS WAS LIQUIDATED PREVIOUS TO THE ALLEGED SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE IN A TUCSON BANKRUPTCY CASE

8.3.                  FIRST MAGNUS DID NOT CLAIM OWNERSHIP OF PETITIONER’S LOAN IN ITS PREVIOUSLY FILED BANKRUPTCY

8.3.1.     THUS EITHER FIRST MAGNUS WAS MERELY A NOMINEE FOR AN UNDISCLOSED LENDER AT ORIGINATION OF THE LOAN OR FIRST MAGNUS ASSIGNED THE LOAN TO A THIRD PARTY BEFORE THE FIRST MAGNUS BANKRUPTCY

8.3.1.1.         If First Magnus was a nominee, then it follows that there were two nominees on the Deed of Trust — First Magnus and MERS. Since no other institution was named, that leaves two nominees acting for an undisclosed principal. UNDER ARIZONA LAW NO LIEN COULD BE PERFECTED AGAINST THE LAND WITHOUT DISCLOSURE OF THE CREDITOR.

8.3.1.2.         If First Magnus assigned the loan to a third party before the First Magnus Bankruptcy, the documents submitted by Chevy Chase and the other “successors” are fabrications and forgeries by definition.

8.3.1.3.         EITHER WAY, APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY, THE SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE, THE NOTICE OF SALE, THE SALE, THE JUDGMENTS, AND THE EVICTION WERE ALL WITHOUT ANY COLOR OF AUTHORITY.

8.3.1.4.         EITHER WAY, THE ACTS UNDERTAKEN TO OBTAIN THOSE JUDGMENTS WERE CONTRARY TO THE DISCHARGE INJUNCTION ISSUED IN PETITIONER’S CASE.

8.3.1.5.         EITHER WAY THE DEMAND FOR RELIEF FROM STAY BY CHEVY CHASE IN PETITIONER’S BANKRUPTCY WAS WITHOUT COLOR OF AUTHORITY TO ACT ON BEHALF OF A CREDITOR THAT WAS NOT DISCLOSED DESPITE PETITIONER’S REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO REVEAL THE CREDITOR (ALSO CONTAINED IN THE PUTATIVE “SUCCESSORS” EXHIBITS)

8.3.1.5.1.              Petitioner has determined that the pooling and servicing agreement for the referenced pool contains language that requires the servicer to continue payments to the undisclosed creditor even if the homeowner fails to make payments. Said document also contains numerous references to insurance and credit enhancements that require payments and credits to the undisclosed creditor that were never revealed despite Petitioner’s numerous attempts to obtain said information. See Respondents Exhibits.

8.3.1.5.2.              Even if Chevy Chase was the authorized servicer at the time it applied for relief from stay, it failed to identify, contrary to OCC requirements, the status of the debt (and of course the identity of the creditor), taking into account all payments made. If the servicer complied with the pooling and servicing agreement then the creditor was receiving payments and reports that the loan was fully performing while at the same time other parties entered the picture out of the chain of title claiming a default. Hence the representation that Petitioner was in default was made either without knowledge or with reckless disregard for the truth.

8.3.1.5.3.              NO CREDITOR ON RECORD: The record is devoid of any representation from the true creditor that it is the creditor and the current status of the obligation, the amount due and what payments have been received from the servicer or other parties.

8.4.                  ASSIGNEE OF SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE: CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION (alleged by Petitioner robo-signed, forged and fabricated by Cal-Western using signature of Pamela E Campbell as “campbell,” reciting she is Assistant secretary of MERS, using notary clause in violation of California law attesting to Campbell’s authority). In short, Cal-Western appointed itself using an outsource provider to claim deniability as to the source of the document.

8.5.                  ABSENT FROM SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE: AUTHORITY OF PAMELA CAMPBELL, WHO WAS EMPLOYEE OF CAL-WESTERN, NOT MERS. No document has ever been produced showing a corporate resolution from First Magnus, MERS, or even Cal-Western to indicate that Campbell had any authority whatsoever. Instead the “successors” used a faked notary clause that violated California law to attest to Campbell’s authority. These “successors” thought it important to create some attestation of Campbell’s authority so they cannot now take the position that it was unnecessary.  In order to satisfy the requirements of title examination, the authority of Campbell would need to be established as these same “successors” have done in other cases where they filed a false Power of Attorney or Limited Power of Attorney.

  1. NOTICE OF TRUSTEE SALE: (EXHIBIT E)

9.1.                  TRUSTOR: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

9.2.                  CURRENT TRUSTEE (WITHOUT AUTHORITY): CAL-WESTERN

9.3.                  CURRENT BENEFICIARY: MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. (NOT AS NOMINEE), C/O CHEVY CHASE BANK . This is another indication that if MERS contact information for this loan was in care of Chevy Chase Bank FSB, then the document allegedly signed on behalf of MERS would not have been executed at the offices of Cal-Western, where Pamela Campbell worked as Assistant Vice President.

9.4.                CLEAR BREAK IN TITLE: NO MENTION OF FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL CORPORATION, “LENDER” IDENTIFIED IN DOT AS SECURED PARTY. Hence, the Notice of Sale was not on behalf of First Magnus, AMBAC, who shows on its website that it administers the pool identified by Respondent US Bank as supposedly owning the loan, nor even US Bank as successor to Assignee of First Magnus. Thus the Notice of Sale clearly states it is for MERS as the creditor, which is universally accepted as factually untrue, and contrary to the application to this Court for relief from stay obtained by Chevy Chase. Note that US BANK remains out of the picture — it is not mentioned on any document, recorded or otherwise.

9.5.                  EXECUTED BY CAL-WESTERN, “A LICENSED ESCROW AGENT”

  1. TRUSTEE’S DEED UPON SALE: (EXHIBIT I)

10.1.               CURRENT TRUSTEE: CAL-WESTERN (WITHOUT AUTHORITY

10.2.               GRANTEE: US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE RELATING TO CHEVY CHASE FUNDING LLC MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SERIES 2006-4

10.2.1.  FIRST TIME US BANK APPEARS — OUT OF CHAIN OF TITLE

10.2.2.  US BANK, TRUSTEE WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO ANY TRUST

10.2.2.1.      PETITIONER HAS DETERMINED THAT NO TRUST EXISTS

10.2.2.2.      PETITIONER HAS DETERMINED THAT US BANK IS NOT A TRUSTEE FOR ANY TRUST POSSESSING A CLAIM OR INTEREST IN PETITIONER’S LOAN

10.2.2.3.      PETITIONER HAS DETERMINED THAT AMBAC ADMINISTERS THE POOL ALLEGED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LOAN, BUT THE DOCUMENTS DO NOT MENTION THE POOL NOR AMBAC.

10.2.3.  FIRST TIME CHEVY CHASE FUNDING LLC APPEARS, OUTSIDE CHAIN OF TITLE

10.2.4.  FIRST TIME MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SERIES 2006-4 APPEARS OUT OF CHAIN

10.2.5.  AMBAC, ADMINISTERS MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SERIES 2006-4 NEVER MADE A PARTY. AMBAC’s role is not yet known to Petitioner except that it claims ownership or rights to the same pool claimed by US Bank, “as Trustee, relating to” that pool. The presence of AMBAC and its known role in insurance and credit enhancement products for mortgage backed bonds indicates that it may have paid off the balance due to the investor-creditors who were the source of funds on Petitioner’s loan.

10.2.6.  NO CONSIDERATION FOR ISSUANCE OF TRUSTEE DEED: NO TENDER OF CASH OR DEBT OBLIGATION BY NOTE, AFFIDAVIT OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENTATION. NO CONSIDERATION FOR SALE. Thus the deed was issued in derogation of the rights of the true creditor, who remains undisclosed, as well as the rights of any other party who might have rights to the property or could have bid on the property. The result is that US BANK received title to property on which it had never made a loan, never purchased the obligation, and never had any authority to represent the true creditor, whether disclosed or not.

10.2.7.  SIGNED (PURPORTEDLY) BY RHONDA RORIE, WHO WAS UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYEE NOTARIZING ROBO-SGINED DOCUMENTS FOR CAL-WESTERN, AGAIN alleged by Petitioner robo-signed, forged and fabricated by Cal-Western using signature of RHONDA RORIE as reciting she is A.V.P. of CALWESTERN, using notary clause in violation of California law attesting to RORIE’S authority).

  1. VERIFIED COMPLAINT: (EXHIBIT J) FOR EVICTION

11.1.               PLAINTIFF: US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE RELATING TO CHEVY CHASE FUNDING LLC MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SERIES 2006-4

11.1.1.  COMPOUNDING BREAK IN CHAIN OF TITLE (SEE ABOVE)

11.2.               DEFENDANT: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

11.3.               RECITES US BANK BECAME OWNER PURSUANT TO TRUSTEE SALE

11.4.               VERIFIED BY SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING BY DARREN BRONAUGH “ON BEHALF OF US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE RELATING TO CHEVY CHASE FUNDING LLC MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SERIES 2006-4.”

11.4.1.  FIRST TIME SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING APPEARS

11.4.2.  NO AUTHORITY REFERENCED OR ATTACHED

11.4.3.  DARREN BRONAUGH SIGNATURE HAS BEEN REVEALED AS ROBO-SIGNED ON NUMEROUS OTHER DOCUMENTS AND IS ALLEGED FORGED ON THIS VERIFIED COMPLAINT.

  1. 12.           LETTER FROM QUARLES AND BRADY 2/11/2011: (EXHIBIT (B)

12.1.               Asserts representation of US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE RELATING TO CHEVY CHASE FUNDING LLC MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SERIES 2006-4

12.2.               Does not assert representation of Specialized Loan Services, Chevy Chase Funding LLC, First Magnus Financial Corporation, Mortgage Electronic registration Systems, or Cal-Western.

12.3.               Demands possession for US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE RELATING TO CHEVY CHASE FUNDING LLC MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES SERIES 2006-4

 

Aztec Foreclosure Corp Antics Analyzed

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

BY ‘NANCY DREW”

In California, OR, WA, CO (non judicial states) place an Automatic Stay one must file Bankruptcy “BK” which stops notice of defaults?
sadly allowing substitute trustee to act as robo-mill and includes bank attorneys who don’t have to reveal ‘security’ the mortgage note as collateral attached.

‘substitute’ trustees file falsified documents as does the documented LPS/DOCX employees, just the employee may be a contractor such as Aztec Foreclosure Corp.

The falsified documents as required by the BK courts excludes the same transactions in judicial states just the ‘Trustee’ and Substitute Trustee don’t have to disclose the ‘name of the loan trust, trust fund, certificates, the ‘mortgage note’ as collateral attached inside and sliced and diced when sold to FREDDIE MAC and others Institutional Investors.

You are forced to fight harder under COTA and Accounting GAAP to reveal what is not recorded with county recorder. You are forced to fight pro pe and when 90 days in default of any amount, the SERVICER of the asset as a receivable – advances funds and tracks the debt they will claim when they liquidate your mortgage.
You are fighting with the ‘Servicer’ who has to advance funding to the ‘Master Servicer’ get it! The party before BK does not have legal standing and the CA Courts ignore? WHY?

Aztec Foreclosure Corp

Aztec Foreclosure Corporation is a full service foreclosure trustee concentrating its practice in the representation of mortgage lenders and other financial institutions in foreclosure of residential real estate collateral in the States of California and Nevada.

Aztec Foreclosure Corporation of Washington is a full service foreclosure trustee serving the State of Washington.

Who is Robbie Weaver Office Manager in CA and Elaine Malone Foreclosure Supervisor? Who is the ‘attorney’ providign due dilligence? Kelly D. Sutherland ‘Managing Attorney’ in state of Washington? Is she licensed to practice in CA?

Look at the 21 Pages of Completed RESALES of Properties!
Please take NOTICE that
THe ‘LIST’ 21 pages of sales REPORT generated by data extracted from databases in which somebody programmed the appearance of the data in a report form all CREATED BY A COMPUTER

A LIST OF ‘COMPUTER GENERATED SALES’ ALL PURCHASED AT THE ‘OPENING BID’ WERE THE HIGHEST BID’
WHO WAS AT THE SALE? WHAT ‘TRUSTEE’ SIGNED C/O …. generated 8/12/2011 @ 3:00:50 PM

Report Date 8/12/2011 (Note the report is generated bya computer from database) organized by Case#, Sale Date, Property Address, Bids in which then the ‘security’ identified. Get that information while you are in BK!

http :// www . aztectrustee . com / Reports / CAZ_WebCompSalesRpt . pdf

Aztec Foreclosure Corporation | Professional Foreclosure Trustee Serving California and Nevada

Aztec Foreclosure Corporation of Washington (Washington State only)

Aztec Foreclosure Corporation has the necessary experience working with lenders to protect their delinquent mortgage assets. Our tenured staff has assisted lenders in their default management department, providing unique insight and an ability to better communicate with our clients. Our knowledge and experience extends beyond the routine foreclosure process into the daily operations of the default management industry. Aztec Foreclosure Corporation of Washington provides the same services in the State of Washington.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA:
Notice of Default – State of California
Upon receipt of the foreclosure referral package, the Notice of Default (“NOD”) is prepared and forwarded to the title company for recording along with the executed Declaration from the lender. Recoding of the NOD constitutes ‘first legal’ when recorded. Once recorded, a copy of the NOD and Declaration will be mailed to all parties to the Deed of Trust and parties having recorded a request for notice.

A Trustee Sale Guarantee (“TSG”) will be ordered from the title company and reviewed upon receipt that will disclose all parties entitled to notice, as well as any other encumbrances recorded against the Deed of Trust and reviewed for any possible defects which may exist that would prevent continuation of foreclosure. The one-month mailing notices are sent to any parties requiring notice.

Notice of Sale
A Notice of Sale (NOTS) will be recorded in the appropriate county and all parties requiring notice will be sent certified and regular mailings of the upcoming foreclosure sale date. The NOTS will be published for three successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation for the city and county the property is located. A copy of the NOTS will be posted on the property itself and recorded in the county recorder’s office. The sale will be conducted at the time and place set forth on the NOTS.

Bidding instructions will be requested from the client and should be submitted to our office no later than 5 days before the scheduled sale date. Aztec will bid according to the client’s instructions. If there are no competitive bidders, the interest of the property will revert to the beneficiary. Third party bidders must outbid the beneficiary to obtain the property, and the sale proceeds are distributed in the order of priority, with the beneficiary being satisfied first.

The sale may be postponed pursuant to the client’s instructions without an additional publication. The sale may be postponed up to a maximum of 365 days after the original sale date. After that a new publication will have to be set with a new sale date, mailings, etc.

Redemption
There is a 3 month redemption period that must run from when the NOD is recorded before a foreclosure sale can be set. Effective June, 2009, CA implemented the CA Foreclosure Prevention Act which required an additional 90 days of redemption:

On February 20, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger signed ABX2 7 and SBX2 7, which establish the California Foreclosure Prevention Act. The California Foreclosure Prevention Act modifies the foreclosure process to provide additional time for borrowers to work out loan modifications while providing an exemption for mortgage loan servicers that have implemented a comprehensive loan modification program. Civil Code Section 2923.52 requires an additional 90 day period beyond the period already provided before a Notice of Sale can be given in order to allow all parties to pursue a loan modification to prevent foreclosure of loans meeting certain criteria identified in that section.

A mortgage loan servicer who has implemented a comprehensive loan modification program may file an application for exemption from the provisions of Civil Code Section 2923.52. Approval of this application provides the mortgage loan servicer an exemption from the additional 90-day period before filing the Notice of Sale when foreclosing on real property as designated by this Section.

Upon expiration of redemption, sale, publication and posting dates will be set. The sale cannot be held until the expiration of 21 days from redemption.

Sale
The sale will be conducted at the time and place set forth on the NOTS. Aztec will bid according to the client’s instructions. If there are no competitive bidders, the interest of the property will revert to the beneficiary. Third party bidders must outbid the beneficiary to obtain the property, and the sale proceeds are distributed in the order of priority, with the beneficiary being satisfied first.

The sale may be postponed pursuant to the client’s instructions without an additional publication. The sale may be postponed up to three times at the request of the beneficiary, after which it will be necessary to republish a new sale date.

Conveyance & Final Title
After the foreclosure sale is conducted, a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale is issued by Aztec conveying title to the successful bidder. If the property reverts to the beneficiary, it is sent for recording within a few days of the sale. If a third-party purchases the property, the unrecorded Trustee’s Deed will be sent to the address specified by that party.

If the property is to be conveyed to the Secretary of Housing & Urban Development (“HUD”) or Secretary of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), a Grant Deed from the beneficiary to the agency is sent to the client for execution prior to the sale.

After receipt of the Grant Deed, if it is a VA loan, the deed is sent for recording immediately. Aztec will order a title policy and forward it to VA within their required time line. If it is a HUD loan, Aztec will await instructions to record the deed to HUD. Prior to the deed recording, Aztec will obtain tax and lien information to verify if title is clear before recording the HUD deed. When all taxes and liens are cleared, with the client’s instructions, the deed is recorded. Once recorded, the title policy is obtained and forwarded to HUD within their required time line. The clients are given copies of the title polices and recorded deeds.

The only post-sale right of redemption occurs when an IRS tax lien is recorded against the property. Once the sale is held, the lien is extinguished, but the IRS retains a 120-day right of redemption. During this time frame, the IRS has the right to purchase the property.

Reinstatement and Payoff
The trustors, owners and junior lienholders have a statutory right to reinstate the loan up to five business days prior to the sale. The beneficiary may waive the five-day limit and accept reinstatement at any time prior to the sale. Reinstatement must be tendered in the amount of all sums due the lender plus all foreclosure fees, costs and any attorney’s fees and costs incurred.

Deficiency Judgment – State of California
The right to a deficiency judgment following the foreclosure sale is limited by anti-deficiency legislation. Under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 508b, there can be no deficiency judgment on foreclosure of a purchase-money mortgage or trust deed. Also, under Section 580d, one cannot seek a deficiency after a non-judicial foreclosure sale.

The anti-deficiency rule does make a distinction between vendors and third-party lenders. The vendor is precluded from seeking a deficiency judgment where his loan secures payment of the balance of the purchase price of real property. In respect to a third-party lender, the anti-deficiency rule applies only to a dwelling of not more than four families given to secure repayment of a loan that was used to pay all or part of the purchase price of such dwelling occupied entirely or in part by the purchaser.

Deficiency judgments may be obtained if the obligation is not subject to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 580. These cases are outside the scope of this synopsis.

Eviction – State of California
The eviction process is initiated by serving the owners/trustors with a three-day Notice to Quit. All other occupants must be given a sixty-day Notice to Quit.
After the 3/60 day period has expired and if the property is still occupied, a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer is filed. The summons and complaint are sent for service upon all defendants. The requisite personal or substitute service of process may take up to two weeks. In cases where service cannot be effectuated, application is made to the court for permission to serve by posting and mailing the summons and complaint to the property.

Defendants have five days to answer the complaint after service, plus ten extra days if service was made by substitute service or posting and mailing. If the defendants do not respond timely, a default judgment is entered. If defendants file an answer and contest the action, a motion for summary judgment is filed and usually granted within two weeks. In those infrequent cases in which summary judgment is not granted, a trial date is requested. A judgment and writ for possession are submitted to the court within 48 hours of a trial, granting a motion for summary judgment or a default judgment is entered. The court is requested to forward the writ to the marshals for posting on the property. Processing of the writ and posting take approximately two weeks.

The defendants have five days to vacate after posting of the writ. The marshal then returns to the property to physically remove the occupants. The servicer must arrange to have a representative present to take possession and secure the property. The majority of eviction cases that are former owner occupied are completed within 60 to 75 days.

SEE AZTEC FORECLOSURE ‘TRUSTEE’

SAME DETAILS ABOVE FOR NEVADA,
AND SAME DETAILs ABOVE FOR ‘WASHINGTON STATE ONLY’

Washington Staff:

Kelly D. Sutherland
Managing Attorney
360.260.2253 ext 281
ksutherland@logs.com

Herrera v Deutsch: CA Appeals Court Deals Death Blow to Deutsch — The House of Cards is Tumbling

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

Herrera v Deutsch 5-31-11 Cal 3rd District

SEE HERRERA DECISION GOES PUBLIC MAKING IT BINDING ON OTHER COURTS

The Substitution of Trustee recites that the Bank “is the present beneficiary under” the 2003 deed of trust. As in Poseidon, this fact is hearsay and disputed; the trial court could not take judicial notice of it. Nor does taking judicial notice of the Assignment of Deed of Trust establish that the Bank is the beneficiary under the 2003 deed of trust. The assignment recites that JPMorgan Chase Bank, “successor in interest to WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO LONG BEACH MORTGAGE COMPANY” assigns all beneficial interest under the 2003 deed of trust to the Bank. The recitation that JPMorgan Chase Bank is the successor in interest to Long Beach Mortgage Company, through Washington Mutual, is hearsay. Defendants offered no evidence to establish that JPMorgan Chase Bank had the beneficial interest under the 2003 deed of trust to assign to the Bank. The truthfulness of the contents of the Assignment of Deed of Trust remains subject to dispute (StorMedia, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 457, fn. 9), and plaintiffs dispute the truthfulness of the contents of all of the recorded documents.

STUNNING APPELLATE DECISION “GETS IT” AND DEALS DEUTSCH A BLOW FROM WHICH IT CANNOT RECOVER

The Rules of Evidence Finally Prevail — NO Presumptions and NO Judicial Notice

Slowly but surely, every point made on this blog, started 3 1/2 years ago, is coming true. Don’t lose hope. I knew that eventually the cards would fall the other way. The reason I knew is that the basic law being applied in this decision is inescapable. The failure of the trial judge to apply basic law was reversible error. The failure of the homeowner to properly plead his case might have had something to do with that, but the Appellate Court got the main points anyway. So here are some of the quotes that highlight the decision: (Special Thank You to Jake Naumer)

Plaintiffs Robert and Gail Herrera lost their house in South Lake Tahoe to a nonjudicial foreclosure sale. They brought suit to set aside that sale. They challenge whether the parties that conducted the sale, defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (the Bank) and California Reconveyance Company (CRC), were in fact the beneficiary and trustee, respectively, under a deed of trust secured by their property, and thus had authority to conduct the sale.

Defendants also provided a declaration by a custodian of records for CRC, in which the custodian did not expressly declare that the Bank was the beneficiary and CRC the trustee. Instead, she merely declared that an Assignment of Deed of Trust and a Substitution of Trustee had been recorded and these recorded documents indicated the Bank had been assigned the deed of trust and that CRC had been substituted as trustee.

The Bank claimed to be the owner of the Property by virtue of a trustee’s deed recorded “by an entity purporting to be the trustee.”

Plaintiffs alleged CRC was not the trustee and had no authority to conduct a trustee’s sale, and believed no such sale had taken place. They further alleged any promissory note supporting the 2003 deed of trust was “time barred by the statute” and the maker, if any, “was lulled into believing that no action would be taken to enforce the 2003 [deed of trust] because no collection actions were taken within a reasonable time and no legally required notices of deficiency were sent or recorded.”

Plaintiffs alleged the original promissory note and deed of trust no longer existed and the Bank’s deed was invalid “as it is based solely upon purported copies which have no force and effect.”

The third cause of action was to quiet title to the Property. Plaintiffs alleged defendants had no original, verifiable promissory note or deed of trust and had no standing to foreclose. They further alleged all rights, title and interest asserted by defendants “were sublimated into a non-functional `security’ instrument that gives no one entity rights in individual notes and deeds of trust.” No defendant had an interest in the Property, but they had placed a cloud upon plaintiffs’ title.

The Bank and CRC moved for summary judgment or summary adjudication on each cause of action, contending there was no triable issue of fact as to any of plaintiffs’ claims. They claimed the undisputed evidence showed that the loan was in default, the Bank was the beneficiary under the deed of trust and CRC was the trustee. The default was not cured and CRC properly noticed the trustee’s sale. Notice of the sale was sent to plaintiffs and California law did not require the original promissory note to foreclose. The Bank and CRC further contended that to quiet title, plaintiffs must allege tender, or an offer of tender, of the amount owed.

defendants [Bank and CRC] requested that the court take judicial notice of certain documents pursuant to Evidence Code sections 451, subdivision (f) and 452, subdivisions (d), (g) and (h). These documents were:
(1) the Trustee’s Deed upon Sale recorded August 13, 2008, under which plaintiffs took title to the Property;
(2) a Grant Deed recorded December 13, 2002, showing the transfer of the Property to Sheryl Kotz;
(3) the Deed of Trust recorded April 30, 2003, with Sheryl Kotz as trustor and Long Beach Mortgage Company as trustee and beneficiary (the 2003 deed of trust);
(4) an Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded February 27, 2009, assigning all interest under the 2003 deed of trust to the Bank by JPMorgan Chase Bank, as successor in interest to Washington Mutual Bank, successor in interest to Long Beach Mortgage Company;
(5) a Substitution of Trustee recorded February 27, 2009, under which the Bank substituted CRC as trustee under the 2003 deed of trust;
(6) a “Notice of Default and Election to Sell [the Property] Under Deed of Trust” recorded February 27, 2009;
(7) a Notice of Trustee’s Sale under the 2003 deed of trust recorded May 29, 2009; and
(8) a Trustee’s Deed upon Sale recorded July 6, 2009, under which the Bank, as foreclosing beneficiary, was the grantee of the Property.

plaintiffs admitted the description of the Property and that they purchased it on June 24, 2008, at a foreclosure sale; they disputed all of the remaining facts. They asserted that the Brignac declaration was without foundation and contained hearsay and that all of the recorded documents contained hearsay.

They [Plaintiffs-Homeowners] contended defendants failed to meet their burden of proof for summary judgment because their request for judicial notice and Brignac’s declaration were inadmissible hearsay. They further contended the notice of default and the notice of trustee’s sale failed to meet statutory requirements of California law. Finally, they asserted defendants lacked standing to foreclose because they had not produced even a copy of the promissory note.
Plaintiffs moved to strike the declaration of Brignac as lacking foundation and containing hearsay. They also opposed the request for judicial notice. They argued the recorded documents were all hearsay. Citing only the Federal Rules of Evidence and federal case law grounded on the federal rules, plaintiffs argued a court cannot take judicial notice of disputed facts contained in a hearsay document. Plaintiffs disputed “virtually everything” in the recorded documents, arguing one can record anything, regardless of its accuracy or correctness.

Thus, initial issues framed by the pleadings are whether the Bank was the beneficiary under the 2003 deed of trust and whether CRC was the trustee under that deed of trust.

plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of the disputed facts contained within the recorded documents. We agree.

“Taking judicial notice of a document is not the same as accepting the truth of its contents or accepting a particular interpretation of its meaning.” (Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 369, 374.) While courts take judicial notice of public records, they do not take notice of the truth of matters stated therein. (Love v. Wolf (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 378, 403.) “When judicial notice is taken of a document, . . . the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable.” (StorMedia, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457, fn. 9 (StorMedia).)

Defendants also relied on Brignac’s declaration, which declared that the 2003 deed of trust permitted the beneficiary to appoint successor trustees. Brignac, however, did not simply declare the identity of the beneficiary and the new trustee under the 2003 deed of trust. Instead, she declared that an Assignment of Deed of Trust and a Substitution of Trustee were recorded on February 27, 2009. These facts add nothing to the judicially noticed documents; they establish only that the documents were recorded.
Brignac further declared that “[t]he Assignment of Deed of Trust indicates that JPMorgan Bank [sic], successor in interest to Washington Mutual Bank, successor in interest to Long Beach Mortgage Company, transfers all beneficial interest in connection with the [deed of trust] to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2003-4.” (Italics added.) This declaration is insufficient to show the Bank is the beneficiary under the 2003 deed of trust. A supporting declaration must be made on personal knowledge and “show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated.”

At oral argument, defendants contended that the recorded documents were actually business records and admissible under the business record exception. We note that Brignac did not provide any information in her declaration establishing that the sources of the information and the manner and time of preparation were such as to indicate trustworthiness. (Evid. Code, § 1271, subd. (d).)5 Information concerning this foundational element was conspicuously lacking.6 Yet, this information was critical in light of the evidentiary gap establishing the purported assignments from Long Beach Mortgage Company to Washington Mutual Bank to JPMorgan Chase Bank. The records used to generate the information in the Assignment of Deed of Trust, if they exist, were undoubtedly records not prepared by CRC, but records prepared by Long Beach Mortgage Company, Washington Mutual and JPMorgan Chase. Defendants have not shown how Brignac could have provided information about the source of that information or how those documents were prepared. (See Cooley v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1039

the timing of those purported assignments relative to the recording of those events on the Assignment of Deed of Trust cannot be found in the Brignac declaration or anywhere else in the record.
We also note that Brignac did not identify either the February 27, 2009 Assignment of Deed of Trust, or another key document, the February 27, 2009 Substitution of Trustee, as business records in her declaration. Rather, she referenced both documents in her declaration by stating that “[a] recorded copy” was attached as an exhibit. In light of the request for judicial notice, we take this statement to mean that the exhibits represented copies of records on file at the county recorder’s office.7

had the documents reflecting the assignments and the substitution been offered as business records, there would have been no need to request that the court take judicial notice of them. Accordingly, we reject defendants’ newly advanced theory.
Brignac’s declaration is lacking in yet another way. It is confusing as to the effect of the Substitution of Trustee. She declares, “The Substitution by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2003-4 substitutes the original trustee, Long Beach Mortgage Company for California Reconveyance Company.” Brignac’s declaration (and defendants’ statement of undisputed facts) can be read to state that the Bank substituted Long Beach Mortgage Company for CRC as trustee, rather than that CRC was substituted for Long Beach Mortgage Company. We must strictly construe this statement against the moving party. (Mann, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 35.) Even if we were to construe Brignac’s declaration to state that the Bank substituted CRC as trustee under the 2003 deed of trust, it would be insufficient to establish CRC is the trustee. A declaration that the Substitution of Trustee by the Bank made CRC trustee would require admissible evidence that the Bank was the beneficiary under the 2003 deed of trust and thus had the authority to substitute the trustee. As explained ante, defendants failed to provide admissible evidence that the Bank was the beneficiary under the 2003 deed of trust.

[SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEUTSCH WAS REVERSED AND REMANDED. DEUTSCH, WHO PROBABLY DOESN'T EVEN KNOW THE CASE IS PENDING, IS SCREWED]


YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO CASH PAYMENT FOR WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE — Coming to a Billboard Near YOU

SERVICES YOU NEED

EDITOR’S NOTE: Well it has finally happened. Three years ago I couldn’t get a single lawyer anywhere to consider this line of work. I predicted that this area of expertise in their practice would dwarf anything they were currently doing including personal injury and malpractice. I even tried to guarantee fees to lawyers and they wouldn’t take it. Now there are hundreds, if not thousands of lawyers who are either practicing in this field or are about to take the plunge. The early adopters who attended my workshops and read my materials, workbooks and bought the DVD’s are making some serious money and have positioned themselves perfectly ahead of the crowd.

Congratulations, everyone, it was the readers who made this happen. Without your support I would not have been able to reach the many thousands of homeowners and lawyers and government officials whoa re now turning the corner in their understanding of this mess and their willingness to do something about it.

The article below from Streitfeld sounds like it was written by me. No attribution though. No matter. The message is out. The foreclosures were and are wrongful, illegal, immoral and the opposite of any notion we have of justice. They were dressed up to look right and they got way with it for years because so many homeowners simply gave up convinced they had only to blame themselves for getting into a raw deal. Those homeowners who gave up were wrong and now they will find themselves approached by lawyers who will promise them return of the house they lost or damages for the wrongful foreclosure. When you left, you thought your loan had not been paid and that the notice you received was legitimate. You were wrong on both counts. The loan had been paid, there were other people who had signed up for liability along with you to justify the price on steroids that was sold to your lender (investor).

For those who are just catching up, here it is in a nutshell: Borrower signs a note to ABC Corp., which says it is the lender but isn’t. So you start right away with the wrong party named on the note and mortgage (deed of trust) PLUS the use of a meaningless nominee on the mortgage (deed of trust) which completely invalidates the documents and clouds the title. Meanwhile the lender gets a mortgage bond NOT SIGNED BY THE BORROWER. The bond says that this new “entity” (which usually they never bothered to actually form) will pay them from “receivables.” The receivables include but ARE NOT LIMITED TO the payments from the borrower who accepted funding of a loan. These other parties are there to justify the fact that the loan was sold at a huge premium to the lender without disclosure to either the borrower or the lender. (The tier 2 Yield Spread Premium that raises some really juicy causes of action under TILA, RESPA and the 10b-5 actions, including treble damages, attorney fees and restitution).

And and by the way for the more sophisticated lawyers, now would be the time to sharpen up your defense skills and your knowledge of administrative laws. Hundreds of thousands of disciplinary actions are going to filed against the professionally licensed people who attended the borrower’s “closing” and who attended the closing with the “lender.” With their livelihood at stake, their current arrogance will morph into abject fear. Here is your line when you quote them fees: “Remember that rainy day you were saving up for? Well, it’s raining!” Many lawyers and homeowners are going to realize that they have easy pickings when they bring administrative grievances in quasi criminal proceedings (don’t threaten it, that’s a crime, just do it) which results in restitution funded by the professional liability insurer. careful about the way you word the grievance. Don’t go overboard or else the insurance carrier will deny coverage based upon the allegation of an intentional act. You want to allege gross negligence.

EVERYBODY in the securitization structure gets paid premium money to keep their mouth shut and money changes hands faster than one of those street guys who moves shells or cards around on a table. Yes everyone gets paid — except the borrower who never got the benefit of his the bargain he signed up for — a home worth whatever they said it was worth at closing. It wasn’t worth that and it will never be worth that and everyone except the borrower knew it with the possible exception of some lenders who didn’t care because the other people who the borrower knew nothing about, had “guaranteed” the value of the lender’s investment and minimized the risk to the level of “cash equivalent” AAA-rated.

The securitization “partners” did not dot their “i’s” nor cross their “t’s.” And that is what the article below is about. But they failed to do that for a reason. They didn’t care about the documents because they never had any intention of using them anyway. It was all a scam cleverly disguised as a legitimate part of the home mortgage industry. It was instead a Ponzi scheme without any of the attributes of real appraisals, real underwriting reviews and committees and decisions. They bought the signature of the borrowers by promising the moon and they sold the apparent existence of signature (which in many cases) did not even exist) to Lenders by promising the stars.

And now, like it wasn’t news three years ago when we first brought it up, suddenly mainstream media is picking up the possibility that  the foreclosures were all fraudulent also. The pretender lenders were intentionally and knowingly misrepresenting themselves as lenders in order to grab property that didn’t belong to them and to which they had no rights — to the detriment of both the borrowers and the lenders. And some judges, government officials and even lawyers appear to be surprised by that, are you?

———–

GMAC’s Errors Leave Foreclosures in Question

By DAVID STREITFELD

The recent admission by a major mortgage lender that it had filed dubious foreclosure documents is likely to fuel a furor against hasty foreclosures, which have prompted complaints nationwide since housing prices collapsed.

Lawyers for distressed homeowners and law enforcement officials in several states on Friday seized on revelations by GMAC Mortgage, the country’s fourth-largest home loan lender, that it had violated legal rules in its rush to file many foreclosures as quickly as possible.

Attorneys general in Iowa and North Carolina said they were beginning separate investigations of the lender, and the attorney general in California directed the company to suspend all foreclosures in that state until it “proves that it’s following the letter of the law.”

The federal government, which became the majority owner of GMAC after supplying $17 billion to prevent the lender’s failure, said Friday that it had told the company to clean up its act.

Florida lawyers representing borrowers in default said they would start filing motions as early as next week to have hundreds of foreclosure actions dismissed.

While GMAC is the first big lender to publicly acknowledge that its practices might have been improper, defense lawyers and consumer advocates have long argued that numerous lenders have used inaccurate or incomplete documents to remove delinquent owners from their houses.

The issue has broad consequences for the millions of buyers of foreclosed homes, some of whom might not have clear title to their bargain property. And it may offer unforeseen opportunities for those who were evicted.

“You know those billboards that lawyers put up seeking divorcing or bankrupt clients?” asked Greg Clark, a Florida real estate lawyer. “It’s only a matter of time until they start putting up signs that say, ‘You might be entitled to cash payment for wrongful foreclosure.’ ”

The furor has already begun in Florida, which is one of the 23 states where foreclosures must be approved by courts. Nearly half a million foreclosures are in the Florida courts, overwhelming the system.

J. Thomas McGrady, chief judge in the foreclosure hotbed of St. Petersburg, said the problems went far beyond GMAC. Four major law firms doing foreclosures for lenders are under investigation by the Florida attorney general.

“Some of what the lenders are submitting in court is incompetent, some is just sloppy,” said Judge McGrady of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Clearwater, Fla. “And somewhere in there could be a fraudulent element.”

In many cases, the defaulting homeowners do not hire lawyers, making problems generated by the lenders hard to detect.

“Documents are submitted, and there’s no one to really contest whether it is accurate or not,” the judge said. “We have an affidavit that says it is, so we rely on that. But then later we may find out that someone lost their home when they shouldn’t have. We don’t like that.”

GMAC, which is based in Detroit and is now a subsidiary of Ally Financial, first put the spotlight on its procedures when it told real estate agents and brokers last week that it was immediately and indefinitely stopping all evictions and sales of foreclosed property in the states — generally on the East Coast and in the Midwest — where foreclosures must be approved by courts.

That was a highly unusual move. So was the lender’s simultaneous withdrawal of important affidavits in pending cases. The affidavits were sworn statements by GMAC officials that they had personal knowledge of the foreclosure documents.

The company played down its actions, saying the defects in its foreclosure filings were “technical.” It has declined to say how many cases might be affected.

A GMAC spokeswoman also declined to say Friday whether the company would stop foreclosures in California as the attorney general, Jerry Brown, demanded. Foreclosures in California are not judicial.

GMAC’s vague explanations have been little comfort to some states.

“We cannot allow companies to systematically flout the rules of civil procedure,” said one of Iowa’s assistant attorneys general, Patrick Madigan. “They’re either going to have to hire more people or the foreclosure process is going to have to slow down.”

GMAC began as the auto financing arm of General Motors. During the housing boom, it made a heavy bet on subprime borrowers, giving loans to many people who could not afford a house.

“We have discussed the current situation with GMAC and expect them to take prompt action to correct any errors,” said Mark Paustenbach, a spokesman for the Treasury Department.

GMAC appears to have been forced to reveal its problems in the wake of several depositions given by Jeffrey Stephan, the team leader of the document execution unit in the lender’s Fort Washington, Pa., offices.

Mr. Stephan, 41, said in one deposition that he signed as many as 10,000 affidavits and other foreclosure documents a month; in another he said it was 6,000 to 8,000.

The affidavits state that Mr. Stephan, in his capacity as limited signing officer for GMAC, had examined “all books, records and documents” involved in the foreclosure and that he had “personal knowledge” of the relevant facts.

In the depositions, Mr. Stephan said he did not do this.

In a June deposition, a lawyer representing a foreclosed household put it directly: “So other than the due date and the balances due, is it correct that you do not know whether any other part of the affidavit that you sign is true?”

“That could be correct,” Mr. Stephan replied.

Mr. Stephan also said in depositions that his signature had not been notarized when he wrote it, but only later, or even the next day.

GMAC said Mr. Stephan was not available for an interview. The lender said its “failures” did not “reflect any disrespect for our courts or the judicial processes.”

Margery Golant, a Boca Raton, Fla., foreclosure defense lawyer, said GMAC “has cracked open the door.”

“Judges used to look at us strangely when we tried to tell them all these major financial institutions are lying,” said Ms. Golant, a former associate general counsel for the lender Ocwen Financial.

Her assistants were reviewing all of the law firm’s cases Friday to see whether GMAC had been involved. “Lawyers all over Florida and I’m sure all over the country are drafting pleadings,” she said. “We’ll file motions for sanctions and motions to dismiss the case for fraud on the court.”

For homeowners in foreclosure, the admissions by GMAC are bringing hope for resolution.

One such homeowner is John Turner, a commercial airline pilot based near Detroit. Three years ago he bought a Florida condo, thinking he would move down there with a girlfriend. The relationship fizzled, his finances dwindled, and the place went into foreclosure.

GMAC called several times a week, seeking its $195,000. Mr. Turner says he tried to meet the lender halfway but failed. Last week it put his case in limbo by withdrawing the affidavit.

“We should be able to come to an agreement that’s beneficial to both of us,” Mr. Turner said. “I feel like I’m due something.”

WHAT IF THE TRUSTEE DOESN’T QUALIFY UNDER LAW AS A TRUSTEE?

DON’T TAKE ANYTHING FOR GRANTED. Just because the NAME WELLS FARGO APPEARS, IT MIGHT NOT BE QUALIFIED. If the entity named is a Wells Fargo subsidiary or other entity that is NOT a bank or other institution described here, then they can’t be a trustee. If they can’t be a Trustee, the Trust deed is probably no better than a nominee beneficiary which would be void or voidable.

Note SECTION B also — that the trustee cannot have a conflict of interest with the beneficiary. If they show up in court in one case claiming rights as as a beneficiary in a similar transaction involving the same pool, they are creating a question of fact that can only be resolved in a judicial foreclosure. And in the case of a substitution of trustee who facially or factually does not qualify, the substitution of trustee may be void or voidable.

33-803. Trustee of trust deed; qualifications

A. Except as provided in subsection B, the trustee of a trust deed shall be:

1. An association or corporation doing business under the laws of this state as a bank, trust company, savings and loan association, credit union, insurance company, escrow agent or consumer lender. [Question: what if they ARE a bank but not qualified under State law to conduct business as a bank in this particular state? Or to be more esoteric, what if they are qualified to do business as a bank but hey are not acting as a bank in this transaction?]

2. A person who is a member of the state bar of Arizona.

3. A person who is a licensed real estate broker under the laws of this state.

4. A person who is a licensed insurance producer under the laws of this state.

5. An association or corporation that is licensed, chartered or regulated by the federal deposit insurance corporation, the comptroller of the currency, the federal home loan bank, the national credit union administration, the farm credit administration, the federal reserve board or any successors.

6. The parent corporation of any association or corporation referred to in this subsection or any corporation all the stock of which is owned by or held solely for the benefit of any such association or corporation referred to in this subsection.

B. An individual trustee of a trust deed who qualifies under subsection A shall not be the beneficiary of the trust, but such restriction shall not preclude a corporate or association trustee that qualifies under subsection A and while acting in good faith from being the beneficiary, or after appointment from acquiring the interest of the beneficiary by succession, conveyance, grant, descent or devise.

C. A trustee of a trust deed who qualifies under subsection A shall not lend or delegate the trustee’s name or corporate capacity to any individual or entity that does not qualify as a trustee of a trust deed. An individual, company, association or corporation shall not circumvent the requirements of subsection A by acting in concert with a nonqualifying trustee.

Moral Hazard in Non-Judicial Sale: Trustee commits violations of FDCPA and other statutes!

From Eaine B

Editor’s Note: I have long advocated sending letters, objections to sale and complaints against “trustees” named (or substituted) on deeds of trust who initiate foreclosure proceedings. Indeed, it is highly probable that because of statutes attempting to protect the trustee from liability, the trustee is at best usually named only as a nominal party in a lawsuit challenging the legality of the non-judicial sale, demanding the identity and contact information of the creditor and getting a full accounting from the real creditor.

I would argue that this reader’s comment is more on target than they even know. Because that is the point — knowledge. If the “trustee” knowingly proceeds when it KNOWS there is a question of title, a question of who is the creditor, and knows that this loan was sold to third parties that have not been disclosed to the Trustor nor the Trustee, then the trustee is more than a nominal party, to wit: they are a co-venturer in a  fraudulent scheme.

Typically non-judicial action commences under a “substitute trustee”.  One would ask why it was necessary to call in a “substitute trustee” from the bullpen, when the current one is just fine. The only possible answer is that the old trustee either doesn’t want any part of this, or won’t do it without following industry standards to confirm ownership etc. It would seem fairly obvious that if the existing trustee is still in business and continues to qualify as a trustee, the only rational reason to change trustees is because the actors wish to do business with people who won’t ask questions.

Often the “substitution of trustee” is backdated, undated or dated after the notice of sale, notice of default etc., so there is a simple procedural angle to set back the sale if you are actually reading the documents, and getting a title report.

More substantively, the “substitute trustee” is granted that position by a party who in all probability does not have the power to grant it — but that requires a forensic analysis, title report, and probably a lawsuit to establish. For example, if some person unknown to MERS assumes the title of “assistant Vice president of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems” and signs the substitution of trustee or any other document, they probably lack the power to do so, or they lack the documentation showing they have the power to do so.

This actually runs to the core of moral hazard in non-judicial states. Anyone who knows you have missed payments, could file a “substitution of Trustee” document in the county records, send you a notice of default, notice of sale and sell your property to the highest bidder — all BEFORE your real servicer (who we know is only a pretender lender) even knows about it. It is a scam waiting to happen. The scammer then takes the money and runs. Meanwhile you have most likely given up and left the house so it is now abandoned. This scenario can only happen in non-judicial states, where the statute authorizing a non-judicial foreclosure sale ASSUMES that the right party is doing the right thing under proper authority.

When mortgages were simple, and securitization was only an idea, the opportunity for abuse in non-judicial states was present but generally controllable because your true lender had control of the loan, they knew when you were delinquent, and they would be in touch with you, during which time it might come out that you had already received a notice of sale from a “substitute trustee.”

In the world of securitization where the potential real parties in interest are almost infinite in number, where the credit report is used rather than the title report, and where various layers of companies are used to create plausible deniability, insulation from liability and the ability to move things around “off-balance sheet” or “off record” at the county recorder’s office, the potential for abuse is practically infinite. And true to form, my experience is that virtually every foreclosure in a non-judicial state contains at least the taint of this abuse and often facially shows the failure to use proper documentation.

Comment submitted by Eaine B—–

Trustee commits violations of Fair Debt Collections Practice Act!
A good cause of action against Northwest Trustee Services Inc, Routh Crabtree Olsen PS is that I have found they sell your private information to the public. Go to http://www.usa-foreclosoure.com and find your foreclosure….then buy for $39.00 a copy of the title report that is supposed to be private between the trustee and the beneficiary. Any public person can order your report online. This is mail and interstate violations. Make a complaint to the Bar association, and the FTC and your state Attorney General.
Call the title company on the top of the form and ask them. Then perhaps you can file a suit against Routh Crabtree Olsen and Northwest Trustee Services Inc for violations of 15 USC 1692 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violation. It’s triple damages. Most likely they will have sent you a letter from Routh Crabtree Olsen. One I got even quotes the 15 USC 1692. So obviously THEY know about it. The owner of Routh, Crabtree and Olsen is Stephen Routh and Lance Olsen. Routh has various companies in AK, MT, AZ, CA etc. Just look at the list on the various web sites. http://www.usa-foreclosure.com has the same address as Routh Crabtree Olsen and Northwest Trustee Services and as Routh in AK.
Also, the process serving company that they use is owned by them.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,118 other followers

%d bloggers like this: