US Bank, America’s Wholesale Lender, MERS Go Down in Flames

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.

—————-
“This is a huge win for homeowner’s attorney Kelley A. Bosecker” in St. Petersburg, Florida

see us-bank-v-dimant_2013-ca-001130

See also http://cloudedtitlesblog.com/2016/02/22/st-lucie-florida-circuit-court-ruling-nash-on-steroids/

This case is similar to another case won by Patrick Giunta and myself in Broward County. The gravamen of the case is that AWL is a fictional entity with no standing. it is a nullity. MERS was not proven to have a nexus to the loan or anything else relevant to the case. Unlike some other cases around the country, the court did NOT order the return of all money paid by borrower to parties who had no right to collect or enforce the alleged debt. That might be the subject of a cross appeal if there is an appeal by the Banks.

The underlying issue remains obscured however. The emphasis remains on the paperwork rather than the absence of any real transactions in which the debt was originated or acquired by anyone in the chain relied upon by US Bank as Plaintiff in this action.

The other issue that I have already commented upon is the continued view by many that Quiet title, in and of itself, is a proper strategy to attack the banks. I don’t think it is unless and until the mortgage encumbrance is and has been declared void or has been rendered void by operation of law (rescission under TILA). Decisions in the 11th Circuit in Bankruptcy court along with a number of other decisions around the country make it clear that the lien survives even if it isn’t or can’t be enforced. See this Month’s Florida Bar Journal article on junior lien holders in foreclosure cases.

And my final comment on this is that it isn’t just AWL that is a fictional character. As I stated in sworn testimony when 16 banks took my deposition for 6 straight days, MERS is a fictional character that does not answer to the definition of a beneficiary in non-judicial states and does not answer to the definition of a creditor or holder in judicial states.Some fo you might remember when I said you might just as well have inserted the name of “Donald Duck” in place of MERS or any of the other players who were pretending to have engaged in transactions that either originated or acquired mortgage loans. My observation remains: none of it is true.

In addition the alleged trusts simply do not exist in real life. Since they were never funded and the Trustee is not managing the money in any account where the Trustee has power over it, the proceeds of the alleged sale of mortgage backed securities went elsewhere. The Trust is not even a shell because it has no business and never had any financial statements. The reason for that is that the Trust was simply a ruse by Investment Banks to take money from Pension Funds and other investors. Hence it is impossible for the assignment, regardless of whenever it was created or fabricated, dated or backdated, to be real, to wit: it implies the existence of a transaction in which the Trust bought the loan. If that were true, the banks would say so and would allege the ultimate status under the UCC — Holder in Due Course. And THAT would have eliminated any borrower defenses.

The assumption that somehow the loan IS in the Trust but that it got there in violation of the PSA is, in my view, simply wrong. But paradoxically it seems easier to get judgment for the homeowner by making that false assumption and attacking the paperwork. If any of the transactions were real, the banks would long ago have come to court with proof of payment and transactions that were clearly supportive of their paperwork — and nobody would have lost or destroyed cash equivalent promissory notes.

Significantly, the ruling found that:

  1. On May 13, 2005, there was a Mortgage recorded in the St. Lucie County, Florida land records in favor of “America’s Wholesale Lender” (“AWL”) which is stated to be a New York Corporation.
  2. The Note alleges that the Lender is “America’s Wholesale Lender”, which the Court determined did not file this action, did not appear at trial and it didn’t assign any of the interest in the mortgage (how could it, as it is a “fiction”?).
  3. There was enough evidence on the table to show that AWL was NOT a New York Corporation at the time the Mortgage was recorded and that this entity did NOT have authority to conduct business in the State of Florida.
  4. MERS again was used to facilitate (as a “cover” for the misdeeds of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.).  This was deemed by the Court NOT to be in statutory compliance with the state’s Uniform Commercial Code!
  5. As in the Nash case (coming out of Seminole County, Florida), there was no evidence provided by the Plaintiff trust (who we know didn’t get the note and mortgage by the cut-off date) that there was any nexus between AWL, Countrywide d/b/a AWL, Countrywide Bank or Bank of America, N.A.
  6. The ruling also made mention of Paragraph 22 as to conditions precedent (which is really NOT the whole point of this ruling); however, the Court appears to have gotten it right when it came to the REMIC trust NOT having standing to foreclose.
  7. The more obvious concern here, is MERS being used to assign a note and mortgage from a “fiction” to a REMIC trust “outside of the parameters and dictates of the PSA”.

 

10 Responses

  1. The Ironic Part, … The party trying to dodge liability & screw me over was one of my many clients. All of which participated in the big scheme!

    Not only did they try to steal from me,on one hand…..
    They filed bk on me in the other.

    But I had access to the Land Bank. 😀

  2. Deb, that’s just the tip of iceberg! I agreed to pay the difference in cash! Pigs!!!! But they wanted the 30 years of feesfees/intrest too payoff my mortgage….huh? Talk about 3rd party non borrower conflicts!!!!!!
    Like I told my attorney….When Hell Freezes Over!!!!!

    Then the discovery of the Real Theft!!!!! The Biggest Heist in History!

  3. Stick analogy ( darn)

  4. Sc
    And it was all based on appraised value of the real property under which our signatures were induced to sign for a purported loan giving the face value if the note a crazy number doomed from the start
    Legally we had the right to rely as did secondary market participants…
    So the proverbial stuck analogy

  5. Great Article!
    Fraudulent Conveyance!

    So… as a condition to approval , the Title Insurer of MY CHOICE ( Bites 1st American) provides a preliminary title insurance policy based on a title abstract report.

    Prove Up…. MERS paid for the note and had the rights to do the things they do.
    Sedition B exclusions … All secondary market transactions.

    Quiet Time
    Reconveyance Bound

  6. Hi Neil Fred here in Albuquerque, NM. You recently sent a NM case Deutche v. Johnston. While the court did reverse the Foreclosure on appeal it also made some other declarations that harm homeowners “standing” defense after final judgment.

    My opinion of the opinion is the court determination is wrong but still prevents homeowners from voiding existing foreclosure judgment using a standing defense. However, it appears to establish right to void judgment under TILA because TILA is a jurisdictional issue using collateral attack.

    The Court Opinion declared:

    “standing is a jurisdictional in the context of statutory cause of action rather than all causes of action. Therefore, only prudential rules of standing apply [to foreclosure]” [pg-7 [10}]

    “standing” in a foreclosure action is not a jurisdiction prerequisite. [p-2 {1} & pg 31{33}]

    Further , a party can raise subject matter jurisdiction at any time, even through a collateral attack alleging that a final judgment is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [pg31{34}]

    Standing is not jurisdictional because the cause of action to enforce a promissory note was not created by statute. [pg7 {10}]

    “a challenge to standing is in many ways analogous to a defense for failure to state a claim because it does not deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction or over the case, but instead bears on whether the plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim for relief. A failure to state a claim may only be raised “during the pendency of the Action” including on appeal. [pg 31{34}]

    Therefore, a final judgment from a cause of action that may have lacked standing may as a jurisdictional matter may be subject to a collateral attack, while a final judgment on any other cause of action, including an action to enforce a promissory note such as this case , is not voidable under Rule 1-60(B) due to a lack of prudential standing.[pg 31] {11}

    I have a quiet title claim in addition to voiding judgment because the bank did not establish standing at the commencement of the lawsuit and because court was divested of subject matter jurisdiction because of a TILA rescission notice sent and recorded in County prior to judgment. In reading this opinion it appears I will lose the first claim but it helps establish right to make the TILA claim. Your Thoughts would be appreciated.

    Fred Montano

    505-401-6189

  7. @ Louise – question please – I look up Fremont Investment & Loan in GA to see if they were registered at time of closing closing – if I can’t find they were, then what? Could they be registered under a different name (crooks)?

  8. There should NEVER be an assumption or presumption [under any Evidence Code] that any bank holds title rights to a note….they must prove it by preponderant evidence in every hearing from Mot. to dismiss/demurrers to MSJ’s or trials.

    CRD has found that robust MSJ’s filed by the borrowers are effective tools as is the taking of depositions of PMQ’s for the banks who usually know nothing of the content of loan files, securitization, chains of title or how notes are declared to be in default. Call us for more at 818.453.3585 if you pro se folks need assistance. Ask for Steve or Sara.

  9. Just FYI, just looked up the entity that supposedly leant the money in my purchase, and they were not registered with the Secty of State at the time of the closing transaction. I guess that says it all.

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: