New evidence demonstrates that US Bank is not a trustee even though it is named as Trustee in some trusts and otherwise “acquired the trust business” from Bank of America and others.
Livinglies founder Neil Garfield, California Attorney Charles Marshall, and Investigator Bill Paatalo discuss the US Bank as Trustee scam:
- A Trustee without powers or duties is no trustee. Disclaimer of fiduciary duties denotes non acceptance of being the Trustee of the Trust.
- Acquiring the trust business is a euphemism for the continuation of the musical chair business that is well known in subservicers.
- Being the trustee is NOT a marketable commodity without amendment to the Trust document. Hence if a Trustee is named and has no power or duties, and which then “sells” its “trust business” to US Bank the “transfer” trust responsibility is void but damnum absque injuria.
- BOTTOM LINE: A trust without a trustee holding fiduciary duties and actual powers over trust assets is no trust at all. This signals corroboration for what is now well known in the public domain: the REMIC trustee has no powers or duties because there is no trust and there are no trust assets.
California attorney Charles Marshall will continue discussing one of his current cases entitled Naguiat v. Nationstar where the Judge ruled that the order was clear that absent a recording of same alleged assignment, the assignment is void:
As a result of same voidness, the following was found:
—- a previously executed loan mod did not legally re-ratify the loan, because the broken assignment at issue occurred after same loan mod–two years afterward in fact–thus voiding all of the foreclosure activity to follow, notwithstanding the previous loan mod;
—- referencing that BofA had previously admitted in a Govt settlement to servicing and loan mod fraud practices–these were part of the reason the Court here considered the previous loan mod void;
—– void status of foreclosure activity resets statute of limitations (SOL) violations alleged by Defendants; Court also accepted Plaintiffs arguments about when Defendants violations were discovered;
—- void status of post-broken-assignment foreclosure docs (NOD, NOTS, etc) nullifies requirement to tender here, as per Yvanova, the subject property was sold at auction.
– Implication of ruling is that it would not apply to pre-foreclosure cases (that is, cases where the subject property has not yet been actually sold at auction);
– Court refused to consider illegitimate MERS role in finessing early assignments as creating a broken chain of assignments, typically ratifying same MERS role as if MERS is a party-in-interest, not a staged entity to get around recording statute requirements;
– Court ratifies Saterbak and Yhudai, holding that the late assignment of the subject loan into the original securitized trust only supports a claim that same assignment is voidable, not void.
Investigator Bill Paatalo can be reached at:
California Attorney Charles Marshall:
415 Laurel St., #405
San Diego, CA 92101