Unlawful Detainer – DTC Systems Inc

Pro Per Debtor Stops Attorneys for US Bank – in RE Deamicis

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

She has been fighting toothe and nail. Nobody was listening. The current bankruptcy judge was skeptical when she showed up in bankruptcy. But now his ruling on a motion for relief from stay blows the doors off her case. It seems that bank attorneys are confused by something that should be very simple for an attorney. The issue is who is the real party in interest? Many have failed to comprehend what is in a name. If a very large bank is included in the name, most just glaze over it and go right to the pleadings. Here it is in a nutshell: US Bank, NA as Indenture Trustee is MEANINGLESS. This is because when a trust is involved, the trust is the real party, not the bank. US Bank is a trustee of hundreds if not thousands of trusts. Naming them as Trustee does not identify an entity that is real. In the debtors case, the bank foreclosed on her home in the name of US Bank as Indenture Trustee of [some Terwin Trust]. This was a non-judicial foreclosure. In the UD (unlawful detainer), which is a judicial case to evict her, the name used was US Bank as Indenture Trustee. The lawyers did not specify a specific trust. She lost that case in state court and before she was evicted she filed bankruptcy. She had to keep objecting and protesting. Eventually the judge came to the realization that something was wrong. In fact the judge ruled as follows:

“The defect cannot be cured, either directly or implicitly, by any ruling this court can make on behalf of the Terwin Trust in the Second 362 Motion.”

I almost fell out of my chair when I read that. If they put the wrong name, they have to cure the problem. Based on my research, in a very large number of cases the wrong party is named. Including yours truly. Have a nice day, I know I will.

Download the case here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/in-RE-Deamicis-Real-Party-in-Interest-For-Publication.pdf

The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 1

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

New Note added on 1/22/2012 thanks to Simonee. California Probate Code does not seem to apply based on this California Supreme Court decision: Monterey S.P. Partnership v. W. L. Bangham, Inc. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 454 , 261 Cal.Rptr. 587; 777 P.2d 623 (download here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Monterey_SP_Partnership_vs_WL_Bangham.pdf)

Monterey S.P. Partnership v. W. L. Bangham, Inc. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 454 , 261 Cal.Rptr. 587; 777 P.2d 623

Here is a quick overview of what happens in a non-judicial foreclosure. If you are in a judicial state, this post does not apply directly to your case. But if you understand what happens in a non-judicial foreclosure, you may get insight into what might apply to your case.

I am not indicating that any of these documents are true or accurate, just that this is what typically happens.

Closing the Transaction

The homeowner executes a note and security instrument (i.e. Deed of Trust). The parties to the trust created by the Deed of Trust are the trustor (homeowner), trustee (usually a title company) and the beneficiary (either MERS or the named lender). Everyone seems to assume that the trust was constituted (created), that it is valid and continuing. This is where the trouble begins (not really, but for this article we will assume it begins here and not before).

Notice of Default

Supposedly the Notice of Default is recorded and sent to the homeowner by the agent for the beneficiary. Who is the beneficiary? Looking at my notice of default the only beneficiary mentioned is MERS. However, other documents sent usually point to one or more other parties who “might” be a beneficiary.

Continue reading “The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 1”