Glaski vs Bank of America NA et al – FOR PUBLICATION

Glaski vs Bank of America NA et al – FOR PUBLICATION

Edstrom_MortgageSecuritization_POSTER_17_x_22_v4_1By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

On August 8, 2013 the Fifth Appellate District in the Court of Appeal of the State of California ordered the Thomas A. Glaski vs Bank of America, NA et al decision published, stating:

 

 

As the nonpublished opinion filed on July 31, 2013, in the above entitled matter hereby meets the standards for publication specified in the California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c), it is ordered that the opinion be certified for publication in the Official Reports.

Based on the importance of this case, the text of the July 31, 2013 ruling is listed verbatim:

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THOMAS A. GLASKI,Plaintiff and Appellant,v.

BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION et al.

Defendants and Respondents.

F064556

(Super. Ct. No. 09CECG03601)

OPINION

 

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County.  Alan M. Simpson, Judge.

Law Offices of Richard L. Antognini and Richard L. Antognini; Law Offices of Catarina M. Benitez and Catarina M. Benitez, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

AlvaradoSmith, Theodore E. Bacon, and Mikel A. Glavinovich, for Defendants and Respondents.

-ooOoo-

INTRODUCTION

            Before Washington Mutual Bank, FA (WaMu) was seized by federal banking regulators in 2008, it made many residential real estate loans and used those loans as collateral for mortgage-backed securities.[1]  Many of the loans went into default, which led to nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings.  Some of the foreclosures generated lawsuits, which raised a wide variety of claims.  The allegations that the instant case shares with some of the other lawsuits are that (1) documents related to the foreclosure contained forged signatures of Deborah Brignac and (2) the foreclosing entity was not the true owner of the loan because its chain of ownership had been broken by a defective transfer of the loan to the securitized trust established for the mortgage-backed securities.  Here, the specific defect alleged is that the attempted transfers were made after the closing date of the securitized trust holding the pooled mortgages and therefore the transfers were ineffective.

In this appeal, the borrower contends the trial court erred by sustaining defendants’ demurrer as to all of his causes of action attacking the nonjudicial foreclosure.  We conclude that, although the borrower’s allegations are somewhat confusing and may contain contradictions, he nonetheless has stated a wrongful foreclosure claim under the lenient standards applied to demurrers.  We conclude that a borrower may challenge the securitized trust’s chain of ownership by alleging the attempts to transfer the deed of trust to the securitized trust (which was formed under New York law) occurred after the trust’s closing date.  Transfers that violate the terms of the trust instrument are void under New York trust law, and borrowers have standing to challenge void assignments of their loans even though they are not a party to, or a third party beneficiary of, the assignment agreement.

We therefore reverse the judgment of dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

Continue reading “Glaski vs Bank of America NA et al – FOR PUBLICATION”

Perils of Pooling: OneWest

Neil_GarfieldPerils of Pooling: OneWest

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The following article was posted by Neil F. Garfield of livinglies.wordpress.com and comes from the following URL: http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/perils-of-pooling-onewest/

Apparently my article yesterday hit a nerve. NO I wasn’t saying that the only problems were with BofA and Chase. OneWest is another example. Keep in mind that the sole source of information to regulators and the courts are the ONLY people who understand mergers and acquisitions. So it is a little like one of those TV shows where the only way they can get an arrest and conviction is for the perpetrator or suspect to confess. In this case, they “confess” all kinds of things to gain credibility and then lead the agencies and judicial system down a rabbit hole which is now a well trodden path. So many people have gone down that hole that most people that is the way to get to the truth. It isn’t. It is part of a carefully constructed series of complex conflicting lies designed carefully by some very smart lawyers who understand not just the law but the way the law works. The latter is how they are getting away with it.

Continue reading “Perils of Pooling: OneWest”

Perils of Pooling

Neil_GarfieldPerils of Pooling

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The following article was posted by Neil F. Garfield of livinglies.wordpress.com and comes from the following URL: http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/perils-of-pooling/

Perils of Pooling

Posted on July 30, 2013 by Neil Garfield

We hold these truths to be self evident: that Chase never acquired any loans from Washington Mutual and that Bank of America never acquired any loans from Countrywide.  A review of the merger documents approved by the FDIC reveals that neither Chase nor Bank of America wanted to assume any liabilities in connection with the lending operations of Washington Mutual or Countrywide, respectively. The loans were expressly left out of the agreement which is available for everyone to see on the FDIC website in the reading room.

Continue reading “Perils of Pooling”

All Assignments of a Mortgage Must Be Recorded Before the Mortgagee Begins Foreclosure by Advertisement

foreclosure_Street2All Assignments of a Mortgage Must Be Recorded Before the Mortgagee Begins Foreclosure by Advertisement

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The Minnesota Supreme Court issued a ruling requiring strict compliance with recording assignments prior to starting a foreclosure by advertisement.

Quote from the ruling:

Under Minn. Stat. § 580.02 (2012), all assignments of a mortgage must be recorded before the mortgagee begins the process of foreclosure by advertisement. Absent strict compliance with this requirement, a foreclosure by advertisement is void.
Affirmed.

 

Download the ruling here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Ruiz-vs-1st-Fidelity-Foreclosure-by-Advertisement-must-have-strict-compliance.pdf

 

Will the Niday & Brandrup Rulings Change How Foreclosures Are Conducted In Oregon? Not Likely!

mers-shareholdersWill the Niday & Brandrup Rulings Change How Foreclosures Are Conducted In Oregon? Not Likely!

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

This blog post was posted to the Querin Law LLC website (www.q-law.com).  Click the link below to read the post.

Will The Niday & Brandrup Rulings Change How Foreclosures Are Conducted In Oregon? Not Likely!

Posted on June 23, 2013 by Phil Querin

Occupy Leader Bratton Held on $250,000 Bail

Neil_GarfieldOccupy Leader Bratton Held on $250,000 Bail

By Neil F. Garfield
Livinglies.wordpress.com

Occupy Leader Bratton Held on $250,000 Bail

Posted on June 23, 2013 by Neil Garfield

In my judgment, based upon the scant facts and documents supplied to me this far, there is no doubt that Bratton DID own the property and probably still does if the law is applied properly.

I know of cases where probable cause was found for Murder and the bail was set less than that. The calls and emails keep coming in and I can’t say that I have a total picture of what was really going on here. But, based upon what I have the current story is this:

Bratton is one of the leaders in the Occupy movement. It may be true that the Occupy movement has been put on a watch list or even the terrorist list which might account for the high bail. I have not been able to confirm that. But it seems that some inference of that sort was used in getting bail set at a quarter of a million dollars. If so, the government is confusing (intentionally or otherwise) the Occupy movement which is a political movement within the system allowed and encouraged by the U.S. Government — with the sovereign citizen movement for which I have taken a lot of heat.

Continue reading “Occupy Leader Bratton Held on $250,000 Bail”

Modern Day Rosa Parks Jailed as Domestic Terrorist: God-Fearing Woman Exposes Foreclosure Fraud

Edstrom_MortgageSecuritization_POSTER_17_x_22_v4_1Modern Day Rosa Parks Jailed as Domestic Terrorist: God-Fearing Woman Exposes Foreclosure Fraud

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

From Charles Koppa

Modern Day Rosa Parks Jailed As Domestic Terrorist:

God-Fearing Woman Exposes Foreclosure Fraud

Who:              Family and Friends of Barbara Bratton, Homeowners’ Rights Advocate

What:             Pre-Preliminary Conference (Court Hearing)

When:            Monday, June 24, 2014, 8:30 a.m.

Where:          Dept. S22, San Bernardino Superior Court

351 N. Arrowhead, San Bernardino, CA. 92415 Map

Ignoring well-documented cases of fraud and abuse that continue to plague the home mortgage industry, the City of Ontario Police Department has instead set its sights on Barbara Bratton, 55, jailed as a domestic terrorist for challenging the validity of property records used to foreclose on her loan.  A pre-preliminary conference is set for Monday, June 24 at 8:30am in San Bernardino Superior Court, 351 N. Arrowhead, San Bernardino, CA 92415.  Homeowners’ rights advocates will be on hand to show support.

Background:

Barbara Bratton, a life-long resident of Ontario, California and an outstanding community member, was the victim of an illegal foreclosure on her family home of 40 years.  Since 2008 she has conducted a tireless and well-documented campaign to expose the land title fraud on her home.  An important piece in this complex case came last year, when a Lending Processing Services (LPS) executive pled guilty to filing more than a million fraudulent property documents in county recorder’s offices across the country.  The fraud on the Bratton home was linked to the suit.  Yet the LPS scheme masked a more insidious crime: the securitization of nearly all home loans since 1996, making it impossible to determine who, if anyone, actually owns the note on a home.

Continue reading “Modern Day Rosa Parks Jailed as Domestic Terrorist: God-Fearing Woman Exposes Foreclosure Fraud”

Failure to Allege Lack of Default

Edstrom_MortgageSecuritization_POSTER_17_x_22_v4_1Failure to Allege Lack of Default

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

One of the main reasons many cases do not make it to daylight is because of the failure to allege lack of default.  Despite many lawyers knowing that this is the case, and that there is no default, many still fail to make the allegation.  On what basis can a lawyer allege lack of default for a homeowner facing foreclosure?

The Note and Security Instrument

The note is not the obligation but evidence of the obligation (for proof of this, in many cases the security instrument refers to the note as the evidence of the obligation).  Lawyers usually describe the obligation arising when one party accepts money from another party.  The note usually describes who the parties are that are obligated in the section titled OBLIGATIONS OF PERSONS UNDER THIS NOTE.  This section of the note states:

If more than one person signs this Note, each person is fully and personally obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note, including the promise to pay the full amount owed.  Any person who is a guarantor, surety or endorser of this Note is also obligated to do these things.  Any person who takes over these obligations, including the obligations of a guarantor, surety or endorser of this note, is also obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note.  The Note Holder may enforce its rights under this Note against each person individually or against all of us together.  This means that any one of us may be required to pay all of the amounts owed under this Note.

Continue reading “Failure to Allege Lack of Default”

Control Fraud


Control Fraud

By: Jim Macklin
Secure Document Research

The term “control Fraud” was originally coined by Professor William Black, UMKC. A control fraud essentially starts as a core methodology for the exaction of some enterprise or movement, whether in commerce or at law. The instigators of a control fraud typically have their own self-interests as the motivation for participants to either ignore regulations or laws, or worse yet, to politically pressure or lobby for policy change that suits their agenda(s).

It mattered not that “liar loans”, defective underwriting processes, and securitization obviations were the norm during the run-up to 2008. The control fraud was in place to facilitate complete immunity from prosecution for the big money players at the top of Wall St. Every associated business that derived its income from the mortgage-backed bond sales was expected to follow the guidelines, as set by the fraudsters, or suffer the fate of not working. Everyone from bond insurers, hedge fund managers, realtors and property appraisers had to bend to the poisonous curve…or lose their competitive edge, and thus, their livelihood. When lying becomes the standard upon which your paycheck relies, you are a liar by proxy.

Continue reading “Control Fraud”