A Brief Summary of Thoughts on Yvanova Decision

WE HAVE REVAMPED OUR SERVICE OFFERINGS TO MEET THE REQUESTS OF LAWYERS AND HOMEOWNERS. This is not an offer for legal representation. In order to make it easier to serve you and get better results please take a moment to fill out our FREE registration form https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1453992450583 
Our services consist mainly of the following:
  1. 30 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  2. 60 minute Consult — expert for lay people, legal for attorneys
  3. Case review and analysis
  4. Rescission review and drafting of documents for notice and recording
  5. COMBO Title and Securitization Review
  6. Expert witness declarations and testimony
  7. Consultant to attorneys representing homeowners
  8. Books and Manuals authored by Neil Garfield are also available, plus video seminars on DVD.
For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. You also may fill out our Registration form which, upon submission, will automatically be sent to us. That form can be found at https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1452614114632. By filling out this form you will be allowing us to see your current status. If you call or email us at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com your question or request for service can then be answered more easily.
================================

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

—————-

see http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/court-decision-to-shake-up-lending-market-says-leclairryan-attorney-300226113.html

Lawyers for banking are advising banks to brace themselves. The

party for them may be nearing its end. Here is a quote from one of the bank lawyers:

“The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corporation will have a profound impact on the lending industry,” said McWhorter, whose practice focuses on representing financial institutions and business entities in commercial, business and bankruptcy litigation. Under the ruling, a borrower can challenge a non-judicial foreclosure sale by alleging that there was a break in the chain of assignments of the beneficial interest in the deed of trust and that sale was void.

“This decision strikes down a long line of decisions that stood for the proposition that defaulting borrowers lacked standing to challenge such assignments,” noted McWhorter. “This decision may increase the filing of wrongful foreclosure actions against lenders, challenging the validity of the assignments based on alleged violations of pooling and servicing agreements by lenders.”

“Although the Court itself called its ruling a narrow one, the implications are quite wide: many courts look to California for legal leadership, so this case could have national ramifications,” McWhorter said.

I have not completed analyzing Yvanova. But here is my current summary of its significance.

*

First, it stands for the proposition that if the assignment of mortgage is void (not voidable) then it has no legal effect and it cannot be ratified by anyone, because you can’t make a void act legal just by saying it is legal. That is something the banks have been getting away with for ten years. Judges were proceeding on the assumption that the borrowers owed money to SOMEONE it doesn’t matter to whom the debt is owed. The Yvanova Court recognizes that this is a dangerous assumption and is not a legal presumption.

*

It’s dangerous because it leads to what we have seen — a complete stranger to a transaction making a claim simply because they think they can get away with it. If that was the law, then people would be mining for “debts” and then suing on them regardless of the fact that the alleged “debt” was owed to someone else with whom the claimant had no legal relationship. This would lead to chaos.

*

So Yvanova stands for the proposition that if a foreclosure is initiated or completed at the behest of a party who is relying upon a void assignment, then that foreclosure is wrongful, and the borrower is entitled to damages. It might lead to a decision on title issues as well. Inferentially it also means that the investors whose money was used for this scheme also have an action for damages against an intermediate party who used self help to make it appear that they spoke for the unidentified “investor.”

*

The Yvanova court takes a strong stand on a very common sense notion — that only the owner of the debt can sue to collect or enforce the debt. And both tacitly and expressly the Yvannova court dispenses with the idea that it is more important to save the banks and their progeny than to apply the rule of law. The Glaski case is reaffirmed and the court reverses prior inconsistent rulings of other California appellate courts that somehow borrowers had no legal standing to attack ownership of the debt. The banks have been relying upon alleging that they are the “holder” of the note and arguing that ends the discussion. That would only be true of they purchased the note, which they did not. It would also be true if they had purchased the debt, which they never did.

*

And the fact that the Yvanova court chose to say that only the owner of the debt could collect or enforce is monumental, because this is the first clear cut decision that drills down to the reality of the fake transactions by which the banks have created a huge network of false transactions or transactions based upon a false premise — that the REMIC Trusts were actual owners of the debt. So Yvanova aims squarely at the strategy of the banks of alleging they are “holders” and then arguing to the court that they are “holders in due course.”  If the Trusts were holders in due course then they would allege that in litigation and it would mean they paid for the paper (the note) and therefore would take delivery of the note free and clear of any borrower defenses. Payment changes everything.

*

The change in judicial attitude is reflected on the Eastern seaboard in Florida where judges are listening more carefully to the arguments of alleged borrowers. Yesterday Patrick Giunta, Esq. obtained an order from a Florida judge in a foreclosure case where the discovery items were compelled — the foreclosing party must deliver documents and answer questions that heretofore had been just out of reach of homeowners who were saying to the foreclosing party “I owe you nothing. You are not my creditor.”

*

Now that the Courts are drilling down to the real transactions, the Wall Street Scheme of proprietary false initial offerings of false mortgage backed securities will start to unravel. In the analysis that I do of each case file where we are hired to perform a review and commentary, these new case decisions will figure strongly in my reports.

29 Responses

  1. to all Many great comments on this post. I will set aside time to read them all. Thanks for Yvanova. I sent it to the Supreme Court of Virginia on Monday as a supplemental authority…..still waiting word on the Petition for Rehearing……quoted 3 great sentences….hoping Virginia court can find such good common sense.

  2. Thecomoanyofcreators
    I did box them in but got kicked out anyway for reasons…. Crickets…. No opinion, not one word. Silence is deafening.

  3. Charles Reed … were you ever in the Navy?? Kitty Hawk? If so please contact me!!! thanks…

  4. Thank you guys for all your posts!!!!!!! I think we learn as much form each others posts as we do from the article and it is specific and nuts and bolts stuff we can all use.. so in case no one has said it before THANK YOU !! and naturally THANK YOU FOR FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT TO BRING THIS ABOUT!!!!
    Its a bit of a moot point after this Calf case but perhaps this will tilt the scales in other States.. since UCC 3 does not allow for credit of any payment made to the wrong party, it is logical and a depravation of right of the payee to know for certain who is the proper party so that their payment will be credited.
    Article 5 of the bill of Rights says “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects…” so by denying our right to know where our papers are and as it turns out our “persons” (the all caps name which we signed on behalf of) are at all times is a tortuous claim. After all these instruments have only one signature thus they are ours from beginning to end as well as the fact that within them is the order to return them.
    Further everyone gets paid as a result of us so they all invariably work for us and we are the ultimate creditors and beneficiaries. Who benefits from the Note and DOT? we do, who is the Note and DOT created for? Us, thus the courts and all those In collusion that work in any manner against the Note and the DOT and the provisions within are engaging in crimes against contract.
    One more thing… what happens when the RES which is specifically put into a Trust as “security” under specific circumstances only and for only one party under those specific circumstances, is used/converted to an “asset”?? Is not the DOT now void as a result because the mission statement has been corrupted?

    What I also find interesting is why people have not figured out that if they can do it, so can we.. If they can use the property as an asset and receive investors funds as a result then why can’t we? The investor gets the tax free investment and we get to use the funds. Now it also seems reasonable that if they can insure the Mortgages 24 times over and receive payments on the entire value of the entire lot of mortgages when only 21% go into “default” or alleged default, why can’t we? And collect the insurance, pay off the investors and sit pretty with 23 times the value of the home in our pocket??? And oh let’s not miss out on sending the 24 times the value of the other homes which were in the policy to those homeowners so they can pay off their investors and sit pretty with 23 times the value of their homes in their pockets as well??? hmmm??
    Which brings me to my next point… since it is true that there is no limitations on anyone not party to the transaction can even anonymously make a payment on the account for any fricken reason they choose and it must be credited to the account, there must be a record of the payments made by the insurance companies that paid out and again “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, shall not be infringed..” one has the right to a full accounting no matter what position one holds and we have a right to know what payments have been made to our accounts. So we have a right to see every penny that is given to the servicer which is to be credited to the account. Anything less is criminal and deprives us of our fundamental rights. 42 USC 1983… Now is it not insurance fraud for them not to apply the insurance payments to the various mortgages upon payment for the entire bundle??
    And does not that payment change the status of the REMIC so far as the taxes goes???? Sounds like another good whistle blowing trumpet because the IRS greedy little bustards that they are, would realize a shit load of funds have not been taxed as a result because this is all pure profit… well actually it is not supposed to be profit at all by payoff to the homeowner who’s instrument’s were used without consideration. One can not be the beneficiary of any policy unless they have some interest in the thing being insured… meow…
    Now due to the recent case in which the court finally realized that one does have the right to discovery and what I have concluded that the reason we are not getting it in any event is because we are not raising an issue which requires them to provide the documents in order to refute the negative averment properly done and the documents are “exclusively in the hands of the other party”.
    So people “Box Them In” and remember one must also “Box in the Judge” to force his/her to do in accordance with the law or become party to the action and defendant in the Federal suit. When we make an accusation “Claim” properly so that when they fail to rebut with evidence and testimony from a first hand witness to the contrary, they are admitting that it is true. Declaratory judgment and partial summary judgment on those specific issues unrebutted and then you have the bricks necessary to force the judgment in your favor as required by law.
    One other thing for those who seem to be succeeding and doing and getting frustrated… Please know that your court is a corporation. Look it up under Dunn and Bradstreet.. then casually mention it in your “comes now” statement and in that statement create your terms of the contract with the corporation to conduct the case under. By them taking any action in the case they agree to the terms and once you have a contract that is breached you can then sue the corporation for breach of contract and injuries as a result.
    What I figured out is that without contract you can not hold them liable.. but if you have contract then you can and can create a case to sue the corporation Court as a corporation and sue it for substantial enough amount that you will own it and foreclose on it like any other. Do not expect the sheriff to do an eviction though, but you can become the owner in fact and as such set the policy… cause the employees to act in accordance with the law…. Yup you can fire them, set policy, the rules etc… just like the president does by requiring the search of all people entering the court…. that is how you know it is not de jure as well as it is not law but the head judge (president of the corporation) that has set the policy.. get it? Turn the disadvantage into an advantage.
    And remember to always sue the principle … the State.. but be sure to collect all the evidence possible and then use Discovery only to intimidate and get partial summary judgments and Declaratory judgments on those “admissions” by failure to rebut.
    Have a friend which I’ve ben helping to stop fraudclosure for almost three years now and getting denied at every turn every appeals court and so forth and now back to the lower court for ratification and eviction. I go in and under 18 USC 4 I “make known to some judge or other officer of the United States (other officer) of crimes cognizable of a court of the United States,” so three weeks ago I “make known to her that the DOT does not provide for “substitute trustees” nor for any trustee to bring a foreclosure action and a bunch of other stuff.. and then state “No court has the authority to enforce contract that does not exist..” to which she talks over me strongly… I wait patiently and when she takes a breath I ask her “have you seen the Deed of Trust?”
    She fails to respond in the affirmative and just drops her head. Now we all know that when an answer is required in the affirmative and is not forthcoming then the negative is affirmed. So I now have a court record (yes I have a certified copy of it, clear as a bell) of a Judge that was the original reviewer of the fraudclosure documents admitting she has not “seen the DOT. If ya haven’t seen it ya cant have read it and if ya haven’t read it how on earth can you make a determination regarding the law of that contract?? and any alleged breach there of???? or to any entitlement under it or as to the parties even?? Can’t.
    So I go in again and go through my schpeal again and ask her if she has followed up on the information and she of course says I have no reason to and I remind her that if I can do up to three years for failing to make known to some judge or other officer of the United States then how much more obligation and liability and jail time is she under to follow up.. she makes a bunch of excuses , bla bla … I then lay out a few more things such as there is no provision in the DOT for the RES to be used for any other purpose other than collateral but the record shows it has been used as the underlying “asset” in an alleged REMIC for investors to invest in which breaches the trust and voids it. and a few other things like the recent case which recognized that the DOT was “VOID” as a result of the trustee of the REMIC not being authorized to receive anything into the trust after closing and Judge Shacks method of requiring evidence that the trustee of the trust is authorized to accept “non performing instruments”.
    She starts to talk over me.. I then remind her of the last time when I required her to confirm that she has seen the DOT and gave her opportunity to correct the record.. she fails to do so. I then say “point blank have you read either the Note or he Deed of Trust?” to which … (now watch this) she replies three times upon being pressed “I see nothing wrong with the papers”
    So now I have a record of this judge admitting that she has not “seen” the Deed of Trust which the alleged party is using to foreclose (I know everyone goes for the note but they are not enforcing the Note!.. they are enforcing the Deed of Trust) and now that she has not read either the Note or the deed of trust!!!! She said ” I see nothing wrong with the documents” and she is not lying because if you have not “read” or “seen” the documents then you can’t possibly “see” anything “wrong” with then now can you… to me this is prima facia evidence of intent. before it was negligence but now I have the intent which is so hard to “prove”. she was still yapping away as I turned my back and walked away.
    I got all that I came for and more.. RICO anyone? with a side dish of Depravation of rights, and embezzlement of office for desert and for the after dinner drink a fine whisky of 18 USC 473 engaging in counterfeiting and for distraction a movie about dereliction of duty, fiduciary duty, which constitutes less than “good behavior” thus impersonating an office (Art 3 Sec 1), breach of trust, extortion, kidnapping, theft of private property, conversion and various breaches of the Constitution and federal codes, process and procedures, due process, and innumerable state statues…
    Oh what a feast we will be having.. Care to join us for dinner?

    She kept saying “your not party to the case”… I almost laughed at her…
    Some of you I am sure can add to the list and make this a real buffet. I would appreciate your input and even assistance.. contact me at truthmonger6 at g mail dot com the is truthmonger6@gmail.com
    After all as we can see by these recent cases a win by any of us is a win for all of us!
    Blessings all and “Thanks again for all your help and positing’s!!
    and thanks Neil for the place and postings for us to learn and grow!!!

  5. neidermeyer
    Dont post ” names” remember you are in court that question was for you

  6. Neidermeyer
    Challenge the 1099c – take it up with all three credit agencies
    Who is claiming the right to issue the 1099c? Whos name is on it

  7. @ Deb Wynn ,

    The 1099-c was issued 2 weeks ago and I know the IRS received my whistleblower complaint (certified mail) but I won’t have a case number for quite a while from them and someone else may have beaten me to the punch… WAY too early for beers and celebrating but if they think they won just because they got a “no sue” agreement out of me when I was desperate for a hamp mod (totally broke after 4 years of fighting with both children and elderly in the house) they are badly mistaken…

    That false/fraudulent 1099-c really hurt me badly ,, I was expecting a LARGE refund check this year and it seems to be stuck in limbo,,, probably due to me not listing $100k+ of “income” from the 1099-c (was unexpected and came after I filed) ,, it’s all explainable and documented as incorrect but I need that refund money and am not looking forward to a possible audit.

    There are several really good lawsuit targets that weren’t covered by the agreement…

    1.) the title company (failure to blah blah blah protect me from predatory lender)
    2.) servicer that initiated FC for wrongful FC … That BOA v AIG settlement/case gold plates my contentions that were ignored by the court.
    3.) TILA RESCISSION enforcement against BOA based on discovering in 2014 that they were my actual lender in the AIG suit… SHAZAM! I can’t think of a better “no consummation” argument… they’re nowhere on any of my docs.
    4.) Sue the OCWEN employee directly (I’m forbidden to sue OCWEN) by naming him as a Sand Canyon employee (you wanna play the “secretary of…” robosigning game ,, I can too) that filed the false assignment against me in late 2014.

    I’ve been expecting big $$$$ for a very long time ,,, and I need it to drive this home but I just got news of another major step towards the finish line this week… I’m looking at perhaps 2 months til liftoff on items 1-4 above.

  8. Thoughts … Your Rights to Insure Payments are being made to the proper party.

    Has Anyone Reinstated a False Default to the Wrong Party ?
    A party who made false claims and slandered title?
    A party who made false claims to a court … that a Judge & Homeowner accepted as true?
    A party who injured the creditor & homeowner causing them harm?
    Did you have to pay legal fees to defend yourself against the false claims?
    Did you incur legal fees to quiet title?
    Did you incur harm when it was reported to your credit report?

    Lesson Learned!
    Demand Strict Proof of Claim!

  9. Off subject of this article but not off subject of this issue – if you are voting for Hillary keep this in mind – she and “Bill” along with former Bush family members are supporters of the Five Star Institute (“Five Star” = Texas) and the Legal League 100 which promotes forums, etc., for the ‘industry’ (servicers, banks, originators, MERS, default entities, etc.) Check out Deadly Clear’s article: https://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2016/02/26/2016-five-star-housing-government-forum-homeowners-uninvited/#comment-13942

  10. Neidermeyer
    Did you submit the 1099c into evidence via additional disclosures perhaps you should ask your council

  11. @ neidermeyer, I just now saw your reply to my question re Nash on steroids….thanks. I didn’t catch that they were b-slapping the MERS part of that deal.

    Speaking of, I have it from the devil himself, MERS Inc., that AWL was never a member. The fact that CW and B of A have been getting by all these years assigning these loans via MERS in AWL’s name is a testament to the total blindness of lady justice.

    In Minnesota, thanks to legislation written by MERS itself, and handed to the first legislator who would prostitute him or herself for a quick dollar (point to any on the hill)…..aptly called the MERS statute, allows MERS to record and foreclose in its name. We know that that last part was nixed nationwide a few years back, but in MN, MERS is still allowed to reach into the grave and assign from dead and no longer existing entities, thanks to this ludicrous legislation which considers MERS to be the owner of legal interest. MERS even gets by assigning the note, which we know they have no interest in whatsoever. By how can that be, you might ask? Because the judges in that God-forsaken mosquito-filled lutefisk-laden tundra will not allow any challenges whatsoever by the mortgagor, even when they point positively to a crime or a void document. I doubt if they’ll ever come around to a Yvanova-styled way of thinking, as they’re way too deep in the bank’s pockets. You might as well challenge the wind.

    Speaking of the wind in Minnesota, when I first moved there the wind blew ferociously every day for months, never once letting up. Finally one day it stopped, and I fell over.

    Good luck with your whistle-blowing. Can we throw a party upon your successful conclusion? Beers on you?

  12. @unieshouse ,

    We just have to keep fighting… I have a dynamite wrongful foreclosure suit pending my ability to bankroll it… currently I accepted a hamp from a pretender that forged 3 assignments over 4+ years.. they just issued me a 1099-c that is totally invalid as my scheduled cancellation of debt under the hamp mod doesn’t occur for 3 years… that earned them a IRS whistleblower complaint and may gain me MANY millions as they no doubt are doing this to thousands of borrowers and not just me… I just need another 3 to 6 months of good opinions and then the agreement I was forced to sign becomes meaningless and I start attacking them.

    What puzzles me is why OCWEN would tempt an audit and fine along with restating earnings and the expected hit on their stock price when the gain to them (tax relief based on cancellation of debt) is minimal at best with their crappy bottom line… unless they’re building up credits with the IRS that would transfer to a company that buys them. The tax credits could well be the most valuable part of the company.

  13. Great for ONE but what about the rest of use they have already stolen our homes and left homeless?

  14. @ djabelanger

    It appears that the SEC’s Form(s) T1 & T2 would require EACH & EVERY individual Trustee of EACH & EVERY individual REMIC to have to comply accordingly.

  15. UNITED STATES
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
    Washington, D.C. 20549
    FORM T-2

    STATEMENT OF ELIGIBILITY UNDER

    THE TRUST INDENTURE ACT OF 1939 OF AN INDIVIDUAL

    DESIGNATED TO ACT AS TRUSTEE

    SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM T-2
    GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
    A. Rule as to Use of Form T-2.
    Form T-2 shall be used for statements of eligibility of individuals designated to act as trustees under trust indentures to be
    qualified pursuant to Sections 305 or 307 of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939. Form T-2 shall be used for applications to
    determine the eligibility of an individual trustee pursuant to Section 305(b)(2) of the Act.

    UNITED STATES hours per response. . . . . . …..9.0

    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

    Washington, D.C. 20549
    FORM T-2

    STATEMENT OF ELIGIBILITY UNDER

    THE TRUST INDENTURE ACT OF 1939 OF AN INDIVIDUAL

    DESIGNATED TO ACT AS TRUSTEE

    CHECK IF AN APPLICATION TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY OF A TRUSTEE

    PURSUANT TO SECTION 305(b)(2) [ ]

    (Name of trustee)
    (Business address: street, city, state and zip code)
    (Exact name of obligor as specified in its charter)
    (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
    (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
    (Address of principal executive offices)
    (Zip code)
    (Title of indenture securities)
    Item 1. Affiliations with obligor.
    If the obligor is an affiliate of the trustee, describe each such affiliation.
    Instructions:
    1. The term “affiliate” is defined in Rule 0-2 of the General Rules and Regulations under the Act. It should be noted that
    a corporation or other business entity may be an affiliate of an individual within the meaning of the definition. Attention
    is also directed to Rule 7a-26.
    2. Include the name of each such affiliate and the names of all intermediary affiliates, if any. Indicate the respective
    percentage of voting securities or other bases of control giving rise to the affiliation.
    Item 2. Trusteeships under other indentures.
    If the trustee is trustee under another indenture under which any other securities, or certificates of interest or participatio n
    in any other securities, of the obligor are outstanding, file a copy of each such indenture as an exhibit and furnish the following
    information: 3

    (a) Title of the securities outstanding under each such other indenture.
    (b) A brief statement of the facts relied upon by the trustee as a basis for the claim that no conflicting interest within
    the meaning of Section 310(b)(1) of the Act arises as a result of the trusteeship under such other indenture,
    including a statement as to how the indenture securities will rank as compared with the securities issued under
    such other indenture.

  16. Item 16. List of exhibits.
    List below all exhibits filed as a part of this statement of eligibility.
    Instruction. Subject to Rule 7a-29 permitting incorporation of exhibits by reference, the following exhibits are to be filed as a
    part of the statement of eligibility of the trustee. Such exhibits shall be appropriately lettered or numbered for convenient
    reference. Exhibits incorporated by reference may be referred to by the designation given in the previous filing. Where exhibits
    are incorporated by reference the reference shall be made in the list of exhibits called for under Item 16. If the certificate of
    authority to commence business (Exhibit 2) and/or the certificate to exercise corporate trust powers (Exhibit 3) is contained in
    another exhibit, a statement to that effect shall be made, identifying the exhibit in which such certificates are included. If an
    applicable exhibit is not in English, a translation in English shall also be filed. In response to Exhibit 7, foreign trustees shall
    provide financial information sufficient to provide the information required by Section 310(a)(2) of the Act.
    1. A copy of the articles of association of the trustee as now in effect
    2. A copy of the certificate of authority of the trustee to commence business, if not contained in the articles of association.
    3. A copy of the authorization of the trustee to exercise corporate trust powers, if such authorization is not contained in the
    documents specified in paragraph (1) or (2) above.
    4. A copy of the existing bylaws of the trustee, or instruments corresponding thereto.
    5. A copy of each indenture referred to in Item 4, if the obligor is in default.
    6. The consents of United States institutional trustees required by Section 321(b) of the Act.
    7. A copy of the latest report of condition of the trustee published pursuant to law or the requirements of its supervising or
    examining authority.
    8. A copy of any order pursuant to which the foreign trustee is authorized to act as sole trustee under indentures qualified or to
    be qualified under the Act.
    9. Foreign trustees are required to file a consent to serve of process of Form F-X [§269.5 of this chapter].
    SIGNATURE
    Pursuant to the requirements of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 the trustee,_________________________, a
    _______________________________[state form of organization] organized and existing under the laws of ___________________, has
    duly caused this statement of eligibility to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, all in the City
    of _____________________________, and State[or other jurisdiction] of ______________________________, on the ______________
    day of ______________, _______.
    (Year)
    (Trustee)
    By:________________________________________
    (Name and Title)
    Instruction. The name of each person signing the statement of eligibility shall be typed or printed beneath the signature.

  17. You may not send a completed printout of this form to the SEC to satisfy a filing obligation. You can only satisfy an SEC filing obligation by
    submitting the information required by this form FORM T-1
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
    Washington, D.C. 20549
    STATEMENT OF ELIGIBILITY
    UNDER THE TRUST INDENTURE ACT OF 1939 OF A
    CORPORATION DESIGNATED TO ACT AS TRUSTEE to the SEC in electronic format online at https://www.onlineforms.edgarfiling.sec.gov.

  18. And think back to the criminal secretary of treasury Timothy Geithner as he attempted to explain to Neil Barofsky how it was going to be under his watch. In his book:

    Barofsky mused that Treasury didn’t care about the suffering of borrowers under HAMP, and the issue came up in a meeting with the Treasury Secretary, which was also attended by Elizabeth Warren, then the head of the Congressional Oversight Panel, another TARP watchdog.

    Warren asked Geithner repeatedly about HAMP. After several evasions, Geithner said about the banks, “We estimate that they can handle ten million foreclosures, over time… this program will help foam the runway for them.”

    “Extend and pretend”, which in my dictionary equates to raping and pillaging the populace. We, the people, were purposely sent jumping through flaming hoops simply to drag things out, knowing full well the outcome…. so as to protect the financial interests of Wall Street, the modern day equivalent to the Palace of Versailles.

    Our government didn’t come to our rescue because we are governed by Wall Street, masquerading as legislators in D.C. And it’s no one’s fault but our own from not storming the Bastille!

  19. See deputy killed and two injured serving eviction…Colorado…non-judicial state.

  20. We’ve already seen in the past two decades or so that bottom feeding dirt bags masquerading as officers of the court (attorneys) mining for credit card debt go to court and get a judgement – mainly because the hapless ‘defendant’ hasn’t a clue what’s going on. The roosters have come home to roost! Foreclosure mills found out that they can do the same thing – on a larger scale with homes and properties. Result: Over 17 million displaced families robbed of their largest asset. It is so clear to me now why modifications were not done on a large scale – ‘banks’ could not renegotiate a debt they did not own. Renegotiating would have opened up a can of worms!

  21. ANY ONE SEEN OF THE THESE.
    FORM T-1

    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
    Washington, D.C. 20549

    STATEMENT OF ELIGIBILITY
    UNDER THE TRUST INDENTURE ACT OF 1939 OF A
    CORPORATION DESIGNATED TO ACT AS TRUSTEE

    CHECK IF AN APPLICATION TO DETERMINE
    ELIGIBILITY OF A TRUSTEE PURSUANT TO
    SECTION 305(b)(2) |__|
    ___________________________

    THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, N.A.

    (Exact name of trustee as specified in its charter)

    (State of incorporation
    if not a U.S. national bank)

    95-3571558
    (I.R.S. employer
    identification no.)

    700 South Flower Street
    Suite 500
    Los Angeles, California
    (Address of principal executive offices)

    90017
    (Zip code)

    ___________________________

    GMACM Home Equity Loan Trust 2007-HE2
    (Exact name of obligor as specified in its charter)

    Delaware
    (State or other jurisdiction of
    incorporation or organization)
    Applied for
    (I.R.S. employer
    identification no.)
    c/o Wilmington Trust Company
    Rodney Square North
    1100 North Market Street
    Wilmington, Delaware
    (Address of principal executive offices)

    19890
    (Zip code)
    ___________________________

    GMACM Home Equity Loan-Backed Term Notes, Series 2007-HE2
    (Title of the indenture securities)

    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

    1.
    General information. Furnish the following information as to the trustee:

    (a)
    Name and address of each examining or supervising authority to which it is subject.
    Name

    Address

    Comptroller of the Currency
    United States Department of the Treasury

    Washington, D.C. 20219
    Federal Reserve Bank

    San Francisco, California 94105

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

    Washington, D.C. 20429

    (b)
    Whether it is authorized to exercise corporate trust powers.
    Yes.

    2.
    Affiliations with Obligor.
    If the obligor is an affiliate of the trustee, describe each such affiliation.

    None.

    16.
    List of Exhibits.
    Exhibits identified in parentheses below, on file with the Commission, are incorporated herein by reference as an exhibit hereto, pursuant to Rule 7a-29 under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (the “Act”) and 17 C.F.R. 229.10(d).

    1.
    A copy of the articles of association of The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. (Exhibit 1 to Form T-1 filed with Registration Statement No. 333-121948).

    2.
    A copy of certificate of authority of the trustee to commence business. (Exhibit 2 to Form T-1 filed with Registration Statement No. 333-121948.

    3.
    A copy of the authorization of the trustee to exercise corporate trust powers. (Exhibit 3 to Form T-1 filed with Registration Statement No. 333-121948).

    4.
    A copy of the existing by-laws of the trustee. (Exhibit 4 to Form T-1 filed with Registration Statement No. 333-121948).

    – 2 –

    6.
    The consent of the trustee required by Section 321(b) of the Act. (Exhibit 6 to Form T-1 filed with Registration Statement No. 333-121948).

    7.
    A copy of the latest report of condition of the Trustee published pursuant to law or to the requirements of its supervising or examining authority.

    – 3 –

    SIGNATURE

    Pursuant to the requirements of the Act, the trustee, The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., a banking association organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America, has duly caused this statement of eligibility to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, all in The City of Chicago, and State of Illinois, on the 22nd day of June, 2007.

    THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, N.A.

    By: /S/ Keith R. Richardson
    Name: Keith Richardson

    Title:
    Vice President

    – 4 –

    DownloadLink

    REPORT OF CONDITION

    Consolidating domestic subsidiaries of

    THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, NA

    in the state of CA at close of business on March 31, 2007

    published in res onse to call made b Enter additional information below)

    Statement of Resources and Liabilities

    Dollar Amounts in Thousands
    ASSETS

    Cash and balances due from depository institutions:

    Noninterest-bearing balances and currency and coin

    2,391

    Interest-bearing balances

    0
    Securities:

    Held-to-maturity securities

    40

    Available-for-sale securities

    65,083
    Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell:

    Federal funds sold

    48,400

    Securities purchased under agreements to resell

    54,885
    Loans and lease financing receivables:

    Loans and leases held for sale

    0

    Loans and leases, net of unearned income

    0

    LESS: Allowance for loan and lease losses

    0

    Loans and Ieases, net of unearned income and allowance

    0
    Trading Assets

    0
    Premises and fixed assets (including capitalized leases)

    8,755
    Other real estate owned

    0
    Investments in unconsolidated subsidiaries and associated companies

    0
    Intangible assets:

    Goodwill

    924,236

    Other intangible assets:

    270,030
    Other assets

    143,616
    Total assets

    1,517,436

    DownloadLink
    REPORT OFCONDITION (Continued)

    LIABILITIES

    Deposits:

    In domestic offices

    1,691

    Noninterest-bearing

    1,691

    Interest-bearing

    0

    Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase:

    Federal funds purchased

    0

    Securities sold under agreements to repurchase:

    0
    Trading liabilities

    0
    Other borrowed money (includes mortgage indebtedness and obligations undercapitalized leases)

    118,691
    Subordinated notes and debentures

    0
    Other liabilities

    126,416
    Total Liabilities

    246,798
    Minority interest in consolidated subsidiaries

    0

    EQUITY CAPITAL

    Perpetual preferred stock and related surplus

    0
    Common stock

    1,000
    Surplus (exclude all surplus related to preferred stock)

    1,121,520
    Retained earnings

    148,100
    Accumulated other comprehensive income

    18
    Other equity capital components

    0
    Total equity capital

    1,270,638
    Total liabilities, minority interest, and equity capital

    1,517,436

    We, the undersigned directors, attest to the

    I, Karen Bayz, Vice President

    correctness of this statement of resources and liabilities.

    (Name, Title)

    We declare that it has been examined by us, and to

    the best of our knowledge and belief has been

    of the above named bank do hereby declare
    prepared in conformance with the instructions

    that this Report of Condition is true and
    and is true and correct.

    correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

    Director #1
    Michael K. Klugman, President

    Director #2
    Frank Sulzberger, MD

    Director #3
    Michael McFadden, MD

  22. BUMPING #2:

    Kalifornia, on February 25, 2016 at 4:19 pm said:

    @ elequisitor (Phred Maldonado?) <<<< ATTRIBUTION

    The Cal Civil Code you've been urging for years now appears very relevant, though it may require a slant toward a negative averment that the entity can not prove its interests for the record:

    1203. Any person interested under an instrument entitled to be proved for record, may institute an action in the superior court against the proper parties to obtain a judgment proving such instrument.

  23. BUMPING:

    Kalifornia, on February 25, 2016 at 2:06 pm said:

    FYI:

    There are an additional SEVEN foreclosure-related cases in the lineup before the Cal Supreme Court wherein the briefing was deferred until the opinion on Yvanova was issued. Consequently, there will be an eventual stream of rulings extending beyond the issues in Yvanonva.

    Keshtgar v. U.S. Bank, N.A., S220012. (B246193; 226 Cal.App.4th 1201, mod. 227 Cal.App.4th 321c; San Luis Obispo County Superior Court; CV120282.)

    Mendoza v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., S220675. (C071882; 228 Cal.App.4th 1020; San Joaquin County Superior Court; 39201100267960CUORSTK.)

    Boyce v. T.D. Service Co., S226267. (B255958; 235 Cal.App.4th 429; Santa Barbara County Superior Court; 1438504.)

    Castro v. Indymac Indx Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-AR21, S227876. (E061030, E061704; nonpublished opinion; Riverside County Superior Court;INC1302920.)

    Flannigan v. Onuldo, S229113. (D067447; nonpublished opinion; Riverside County Superior Court; RIC1304784.)

    Gehron v. Nicholas, S231459. (E061855; nonpublished opinion; Riverside County Superior Court; INC1302638.)

    Gehron v. Bank of America N.T., S231447. (E060701; nonpublished opinion; Riverside County Superior Court; INC1302638.)

  24. Why you don’t offer contingency service to help people???It’s just that simple…

  25. At least 3yrs ago when first commenting here I said exactly what this decision has said. I have submitted this claim against Wells Fargo Bank and other lenders in Feb 2012, but had express this crime to the Justice Dept back on Oct 2010.

    It been simply that you have to be the “holder in due course” in order to call the loans due! End of story! I am sitting on top of billions of dollars due the Federal Government to recover!

  26. Massachusetts’
    Non-Judicial Foreclosure Process What does it mean to be a non-judicial foreclosure state? It means that borrowers do not get a day in court in front of a judge before they are foreclosed upon. It means that Massachusetts built its legal process on a strict honor code. Since foreclosing entities are not required to go in front of a judge, our law literally expects them to behave even more scrupulously and honestly than if we did require foreclosures to be reviewed by a judge1 well that doesn’t happen.
    so TILA does the same for borrowers, as the banks get in a Non-Judicial Foreclosure Process,
    the STATUE IS NOT AMBIGUOUS. IT SAYS WHAT IT MEANS. and the supreme court put there
    stamp on it. all a homeowner has to do is send a letter. The statute explains, in terms the Court regarded as “unequivocal,” how “the right to rescind is to be exercised: It provides that a borrower ‘shall have the right to rescind, by notifying the creditor, in accordance with regulations of the Board, of his intention to do so.’” Because that language “leaves no doubt that rescission is effected” by the borrower’s notice, The Court responded: “Nothing in our jurisprudence, and no tool of statutory interpretation, requires that a congressional Act must be construed as implementing the closest common-law analogue.”
    Section 1635(a) nowhere suggests a distinction between disputed and undisputed rescissions, much less that a lawsuit would be required for the latter.
    when i sent out ( letter/notice ) to banks,and all others of rescission. that was and has the same affect as the banks sending a notice to foreclose. and the only way a homeowner can
    stop that notice to foreclose is a order from a court, and how we do that , is we have to file
    in court to stop it/ argue against it, and challenge it, and dispute the notice /letter/ and ask the judge to vacate the FORECLOSURE SALE.
    NOW REVERSE THAT.
    that is why there is that 20 day period, for them to , DISPUTE THE RESCISSION, BY FILING IN COURT, just as we have to file and ask judge to vacate the foreclosure action, to dispute there action on trying to foreclose on us. it is the same. but in reverse. by operation of law, AND ONLY A JUDGES ORDERS CAN VACATE THAT ACTION., the mortgage and note, are void, cancelled, as of the date it was mailed. that is why they hate it. and they know, the only
    person that can come into court to get that vacated, is the TRUE CREDITOR. THE ONE THAT GAVE MONEY.
    Section 1635(a) nowhere suggests a distinction between disputed and undisputed rescissions, much less that a lawsuit would be required for the latter.
    SO JUST AS IN US DISPUTING THERE FACTS TO FORECLOSE ON ME. AND HAVE SO MANY DAYS TO DO THAT IN, OUR I WOULD LOSE MY HOUSE, THEY HAVE TO DO THE SAME TO SAVE THERE FACTS. LET ASK YOU PETER.
    WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO ME, IF I DIDNT GO TO COURT AND ASK JUDGE TO VACATE THE FORECLOSURE SALE? HOW MANY DAYS DO I HAVE TO GET THAT DONE?
    AND AFTER THEY FORECLOSE ON ME, AND MAYBE 3 MONTHS OR SO GO’S BY, AND I GO INTO COURT AND ASK THE JUDGE TO VACATE THE FORECLOSURE SALE. AND THE BANK SAYS , WAIT YOUR HONOR, THEY HAD TIME TO DISPUTE AND GET A COURT ORDER TO STOP FORECLOSURE SALE, AND THEY DIDNT DO THAT IN THE REQUIRED TIME. TELL ME WHAT THE JUDGE WOULD SAY TO ME. ? BECAUSE WHAT THE JUDGE WOULD SAY THERE IS THE ONLY THING HE CAN SAY TO THEM NOW THAT THEY HAVE NOT COMPLYED TO THE STATUES. AND THE BIG THING IS THAT THEY DO NOT
    HAVE AVAILBLE , TO SAY WE HAVE THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE. OBJECTION YOUR HONOR, THEY HOLD NOTHING, THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE WAS VOIDED AND CANCELLED AS OF MAILING, AND IF THEY WANTED TO DISPUTE THE NOTICE OF RESCISSION, THEY HAD 20 DAYS TO DO THAT, AND THEY DIDNT.

    so point is . 1/ i sent out rescission notice/ letter on this date.
    2/ bank received / got/sign for letter/notice on this date.
    3/ 2ND Demand letter went out on this date.
    4/ bank received/got/sign for 2nd Demand notice.

    Like Neil Garfield said in his radio cast last night when we enforce them violating 15 U.S.C 1635;

    Wherefore please enter an order that commands them to return the cancelled note, file the release of void of encumbrance and;

    William a Marshall Sr, estate of William a Marshall Sr, and David a Belanger ,poa, of Joanna Belanger
    and poa of estate of William a Marshall Sr, and William a Marshall Sr.
    Plaintiff
    V.
    Deutsche Bank National Trust Company third party intervenor
    Counter Party JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A, third party intervenor
    John Doe 1 to infinity intervenors
    Defendants

    Now Come, David a Belanger ,poa, of Joanna Belanger
    and poa of estate of William a Marshall Sr, and William a Marshall Sr. , the Plaintiffs and as their attorney on their behalf and respectfully move this honorable court to enter Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce three statutory jurisdiction duties under 15 U.S.C 15-1635 to enforce and cure the banks violation of their duties.
    It is clear neither the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, decision nor the statue itself is open to any interpretation at all. The lower Courts, the federal Courts, the United State Congress or the Executive Branches of Government, have all collectively and unanimously stated the contract, if it ever existed, the Note and the Mortgage are void by operation of law.

    1. The Plaintiffs’ rescission was mailed, April 13, 2015.

    2. More than twenty days have expired since the mailing of the rescission notice

    3. the Defendants, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. receives the rescission notice and have done nothing in response and therefore they are in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1635.( have not filed anything in court, to dispute the rescission, in the required 20 days, time to dispute the rescission , or ask a court to vacate the rescission FOR THE NOW, VOIDED MORTGAGE AND NOTE, THAT BECAME VOIDED BY OPERATION OF LAW, AS OF THE MAILING OF THE NOTICE TO RECIND,
    THAT THEY RECEIVED ON, THIS DAY BY CERTIFIED MAIL,

    4/ A 2ND DEMAND LETTER, WAS SENT ON THIS DATE. ASKING THEM AGAIN TO COMPLY TO THE LAW. AS OF
    THIS DATE, THEY HAVE NOT AGAIN COMPLY TO LAW. STATUE,

    Wherefore please enter an order that commands the Defendants and any of their subsidiaries or related trust or corporate entities, agents, employees, successors and assigns to return the Plaintiffs’ cancelled note, prepare and file the release of the now void Plaintiffs’ mortgage encumbrance of record and;

    a. Return all the money that the Plaintiffs have paid against the account of their Note and Mortgage.

    b. Pay Plaintiffs all the monies paid to any third parties as compensation arising out of and/or related to the origination of this consumer mortgage loan transaction.

    c. Permanently enjoin the applicable specific parties, that are not public entities like the court, from attempting to use the Plaintiffs’VOIDED AND CANCELLED Note and Mortgage for the enforcement of foreclosure or any collection or enforcement of this purported debt.
    .
    d. To expunging all Registry of Deeds records of the Defendants , the now void plaintiffs mortgage, foreclosure affidavits , assignments, etc, etc,

    i would also ask for attorney fees, etc.etc

    Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Mutuality of obligation — Mortgage foreclosure — A defendant was entitled to recover attorney’s fees as a prevailing party under section 57.105(7), where mortgage entitled mortgagee to reasonable attorney’s fees for enforcement, after court granted motion to dismiss mortgage foreclosure and dismissed the case without prejudice — Pleading requirement — It was proper for defendant to seek attorney’s fees in a motion filed after entry of dismissal without prejudice where she had not yet filed a responsive pleading — Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal makes a defendant a prevailing party even where plaintiff refiles the case and prevail.

    Respectfully submitted

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: