REMIC Trusts Do NOT Exist

THE ESSENCE OF A TRUST IS NOT THE TRUST DOCUMENT. THE ESSENCE IS THE EXISTENCE OF TRUST PROPERTY.

Like legal standing, there must be some THING that is involved or the court has no jurisdiction. If you look up any source on the definition or elements of a legal trust, there is no “Trust” if no THING (property) has been conveyed to the intended Trustee to hold in “Trust.” Without a THING, property in the Trust instrument is both nonexistent and irrelevant and does not create a legal “person” in any court in any state. Trusts of all types do not exist unless and until property is entrusted to the Trustee.

Get a consult and Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

We now know both directly and indirectly that the REMIC Trusts never received the proceeds of sale of certificates allegedly issued by the “Trust.” So nothing was transferred to the Trustee to hold in Trust. We also now know that no purchase or transfer of assets or loans ever occurred thereafter. Hence the disclaimers in the Trust Instrument reducing the Trustee’s obligations to zero. With no property entrusted to the named Trustee, the most basic element of the formation of a trust is missing. The legal “person” does not exist.

Hence one of the primary attacks by homeowners should be that the Trust does not exist and therefore could not be the beneficiary under a deed of trust nor the mortgagee by succession or otherwise.

If anything, even if the “transfer” of loan documents were to be taken seriously, that would place the REMIC Trust in the position of being the Trustee or agent for whoever does own the property! The property in this case being a loan receivable. The paper alone is just that —- paper. Such documents of “transfer” are based upon the supposition that something in the real world of commerce has occurred — otherwise there is no legal reason for the paper to exist except for some criminal or nefarious purpose.

Upon the slightest investigation and research it is readily apparent that no such transactions ever took place in the real world. The REMIC Trusts were never used for anything except as a sham Plaintiff in foreclosure lawsuits or sham beneficiary in substitutions of trustee on deeds of trust, notices of default and notices of sale in nonjudicial proceedings.

So unless a judge wants to put a value on the used copy paper on which the instruments of transfer were fabricated or forged, there is no value and nothing is in trust leaving the beneficiaries with nothing in writing that has any value. All they have is the promise of income and the promise of a beneficial interest in a mortgage loan schedule that did not exist when the certificates were issued and sold, nor did the MLS exist as trust property anytime thereafter.

The attack should be direct in nonjudicial states and by motion in judicial states. A motion to quash service and/or for dismissal is entirely appropriate and even if you don’t believe you will get traction in the trial court, take care to preserve the issue on appeal.

While many “forensic” reports point out inconsistencies, it seems that only the LendingLies analytic report actually provides the argument for lack of jurisdiction based upon the nonexistence of the foreclosing party.

Try to force a hearing in which the lawyers for the foreclosing party are required to show a transaction in which money or property was ever transferred to the alleged REMIC Trust. Even a motion to dismiss might flush them out.

In the end they will be forced to concede that if their assertions in court were true, the Trust would be a holder in due course, enabling them to foreclose free from any borrower defenses. That they never allege HDC status in any litigation is a tacit admission that the Trust was not a party, did not pay value in good faith and without knowledge of the borrower’s defenses.

If they dance around the reasons why they did not allege HDC status you can pursue them in discovery as to the elements of HDC status and the elements of “holder with rights to enforce” status. Either way they collapse when pursued vigorously.

7 Responses

  1. As usual, another factually and legally incorrect post.

  2. WE NEED HELP AS OUR HOME IS ILLEGALLY FORECLOSED IN RHODE ISLAND BY A TRUSTEE CLAIMING TO BE SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, WHICH CAN NOT HAPPEN AS THERE WAS AN ALLEGED DEFAULT .PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED TRANSFER OF THE NOTE. WE DON’T EVEN THINK THAT THE TRUST HAS OUR NOTE

  3. Sir: When something is too good to be real,it generally isn’t Lets parse it all. Script: On June 1.2006 2 lawyers and two adult males performed the following: Male purchaser of residencial property executed and delivered a promissory note and collateral security for payment of the note (debt) in the form of a mortgage describing the premises.both made toa Lender named Washington Mutual Bank In exchange for delivery to an attorney, Male sellor received in his bank account a deposit equal to the sale’s price.The other costs were also paid to the attorney. Male buyer received evidence of his now ownership. The mortgage was carried to the local Town clerk and recorded on the land records as a lien.
    There is no evidence whatsoever of the then understanding of the parties that the Note and Mortgage were delivered to the Lender nor the assertion of their further assignment, transfer or sale to any third party eg,a Depositor, (LaSalle National Bank) aTrustee for a REMIC Trust registered with the SEC as WAMU Mortgage Backed Pass-through Certificates WMALT Series 2007 HY-2 , etc The purported servicer of the instant loan was Washington Mutual Bank,
    On September 25,2008 the Office of Thrift Supervision purported to close WAMUand named the FDIC Receiver of all its assets, whichthe FDIC thereupon purportedly sold the same day to JP MorganChase Bank NA.Chase executives have testified under oath that an inventory of such assets DOES NOT EXIST. Nevertheless Chase immediatly claimed that it had acquired the servicing rights to said trust and to the instant loan which was part of the trust corpus.
    Herein the problem with Mr Garfield’s iteration which declares that there “ain;t no assets in the REMIC trust” Maybe that’s true but how does one explain the Schedule of Loans made a part of the SEC Registration Statement for the above Trust as EXHIBIT 99.1.?
    I would be quite circumspect .I note no references, citations .bRIEfsetc making the argument proposed.
    Help me out. I want to win too.

  4. Only will prevail if you have an honest judge.

  5. Exactly

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

  6. Thanks Neil for your continued input and great follow-up on recent cases. Too bad we can’t get good attorneys nationwide to band together on one huge class action suit that would really benefit ALL property owners.
    Cases like in Colorado that the 10th Circuit Court Ruled on back on August 15, 2016 are really limited, may still be overturned or settled and you can bet the attorneys involved will only be looking out for themselves and all the fees they hope to get.
    Property owners, on the other hand will get little to any monetary benefit and relief. Very sad situation. Semper Fi

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: