L Randall Wray – MERS is Toast – RIP

L Randall Wray – MERS is Toast – RIP

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

If you have MERS on your loan, banks messed up big time and get no “do over” – congratulations on owning your house free and clear (once you wrestle it free of the big banks that is).  So says L Randall Wray, who is the Professor of Economics and Research Director of the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, University of Missouri–Kansas City.  Read his entire article here: http://www.benzinga.com/news/11/02/867233/new-yorks-us-bankruptcy-court-rules-merss-business-model-is-illegal

Congratulations to the mega banks and companies that are MERS shareholders:

MERS has no agency – New York Bankruptcy Court: in re Agard

The following is a New York Bankruptcy motion for relief from stay ruling from February 10th, 2011

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

—————————————————————–x

In re:

Case No. 810-77338-reg

FERREL L. AGARD,

Chapter 7

Debtor.

—————————————————————–x

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Before the Court is a motion (the “Motion”) seeking relief from the automatic stay

pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2), to foreclose on a secured interest in the Debtor’s real

property located in Westbury, New York (the “Property”). The movant is Select Portfolio

Servicing, Inc. (“Select Portfolio” or “Movant”), as servicer for U.S. Bank National Association,

as Trustee for First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-FF12, Mortgage Pass-Through

Certificates, Series 2006-FF12 (“U.S. Bank”). The Debtor filed limited opposition to the Motion

contesting the Movant’s standing to seek relief from stay. The Debtor argues that the only

interest U.S. Bank holds in the underlying mortgage was received by way of an assignment from

the Mortgage Electronic Registration System a/k/a MERS, as a “nominee” for the original

lender. The Debtor’s argument raises a fundamental question as to whether MERS had the legal

authority to assign a valid and enforceable interest in the subject mortgage. Because U.S. Bank’s

rights can be no greater than the rights as transferred by its assignor – MERS – the Debtor argues

that the Movant, acting on behalf of U.S. Bank, has failed to establish that it holds an

enforceable right against the Property.1 The Movant’s initial response to the Debtor’s opposition was that

MERS’s authority to assign the mortgage to U.S. Bank is derived from the mortgage itself which

allegedly grants to MERS its status as both “nominee” of the mortgagee and “mortgagee of

record.” The Movant later supplemented its papers taking the position that U.S. Bank is a

creditor with standing to seek relief from stay by virtue of a judgment of foreclosure and sale

entered in its favor by the state court prior to the filing of the bankruptcy. The Movant argues

that the judgment of foreclosure is a final adjudication as to U.S. Bank’s status as a secured

creditor and therefore the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits this Court from looking behind the

judgment and questioning whether U.S. Bank has proper standing before this Court by virtue of a

valid assignment of the mortgage from MERS.
Continue reading “MERS has no agency – New York Bankruptcy Court: in re Agard”

Ben Ezra Order to Show Cause Why Ben Ezra & Katz Should Not be Held in Contempt of Court on Feb 11, 2011

Ben Ezra Order to Show Cause Why Ben Ezra & Katz Should Not be Held in Contempt of Court on Feb 11, 2011

From LivingLies, which posted it from 4ClosureFraud.org …

How is this for some timing.

Last night Fannie Mae announced they are dumping this firm and today we get this…

CENTRAL MORTGAGE COMPANY,
PLAINTIFF,

VS.

EDUARDO GONZALEZ DELREAL
ETAL,
DEFENDANTS,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY BEN-EZRA &  KATZ SHOULD NOT BE
HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT ON FEBRUARY 11, 2011 AT 9:00A.M.

From the order to show cause…

Counsel  for  the Plaintiff, Ben-Ezra &  Katz were properly noticed  to  appear for  hearing  on  January 21,  2011  and  failed  to  do  so.  The Court attempted to  contact Ben-Ezra &  Katz  to  address  this matter  during hearing,  but was unable  to get anyone on  the  telephone.

In  the  instant Case,  Plaintiff filed  an  action  of foreclosure  on Defendant’s property located at 1301  SW 2601 h  Terrace, Homestead, FL 33032.

Continue reading “Ben Ezra Order to Show Cause Why Ben Ezra & Katz Should Not be Held in Contempt of Court on Feb 11, 2011”

Daniel Pennell Explains why MERS is Completely out of Control

Daniel Pennell Explains why MERS is Completely out of Control

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Daniel Pennell has the following qualifications:

  • PMP
  • LSSGB
  • Certified Lean Six Sigma (Process & Quality Control)
  • Certified Technical Program & Risk Manager
  • Former investment advisor and insurance broker
  • 16 Years designing and automating & business processes in regulated environments
    • Florida State Supreme Court
    • Florida 20th & 6th Judicial Circuits
    • Chubb Insurance
    • Pharmacia
    • Other State, Federal and Fortune 500 clients

Mr. Pennell goes on to give a professional analysis of the Frankenstein (MERS) process.  Which can only be described as completely out of control.  It is of significance to note that the very entities that created and brought forth Frankenstein are governed by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.  It is just as important to note that Frankenstein is NOT governed by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, nor governed by federal, state or county land recordation laws.   The OCC requires that national banks have “effective risk management procedures and internal controls to conduct the activities safely and soundly.”   It is apparent to everyone except OCC that this is not and has not been the case (i.e. rampant industry standards of notary violations, no personal knowledge, forgery, perjury, etc).  It is also apparent that the national banks are using other entities such as Frankenstein and foreclosure mills such as the Stern Law Firm and Dolan Media (NDEx West) to perpetuate these activities.  Dolan Media specifically states to their investors they are proudly not involved in the robo-signing fiasco (notary violations, no personal knowledge, forgery, etc).  If Mr. Pennell did an analysis of the shoddy work done by Dolan Media he would find that they give Frankenstein a run for its money.  What I want to emphasize though is that  Frankenstein, because of the very nature of its work, is required to have “effective risk management procedures and internal controls to conduct activities safely and soundly.”   But this was the OPPOSITE of the INTENT of the parties when they created this monster in their laboratories.   I can still hear the echos of their diabolical laughter.  As a side note, see Fred Smith explain why Frankenstein (MERS) was involved: http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/fred-smith-explains-why-mers-was-involved-multiple-securitizations/

Continue reading “Daniel Pennell Explains why MERS is Completely out of Control”

Failure to Allege Lack of Default

Failure to Allege Lack of Default

by Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

I came across the following on Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16055101289176414591&q=Restatement+(Third)+Of+Property+(Mortgages)+%C2%A7+5.4&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5):

A. Failure to Allege Lack of Default

First, Nevada law is clear that “[a]n action for the tort of wrongful foreclosure will lie if the trustor or mortgagor can establish at the time the power of sale was exercised or the foreclosure occurred, no breach of condition or failure of performance existed on the mortgagor or trustor’s part which would have authorized the foreclosure or exercise of the power of sale.Ernestburg v. Mortgage Investors Group, No. 2:08-cv-01304-RCJ-RJJ, 2009 WL 160241, at *6 (D. Nev. Jan. 22, 2009) (internal citations and quotations omitted). The plaintiff must establish that they were not “in default when the power of sale was exercised.Id. (citing Collins v. Union Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 662 P.2d 610, 623 (Nev. 1983)). Furthermore, a claim for wrongful foreclosure does not arise until the power of sale is exercised. Collins, 662 P.2d at 623.

Continue reading “Failure to Allege Lack of Default”

The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 2

The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 2

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)

This is a continuation from The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 1 (http://dtc-systems.net/2011/01/wrong-remedy-wrong-time-part-1/).

It turns out that if you want to modify the Trust created by your Deed of Trust, or if you want to determine if the trust exists, you need to petition the court under California Probate Code 17200.  If you are not in California, but are in a Deed of Trust state, your state probably has similar probate laws.

In order to petition the court, California Probate Code 17200 has the following provision:

“(a) Except as provided in Section 15800, a trustee or beneficiary of a trust may petition the court under this chapter concerning the internal affairs of the trust or to determine the existence of the trust.”

Right off the bat we find that only a trustee or a beneficiary has the ability to petition the court under 17200.  If no trustee is specified, the default trustee is the trustor (the parties that executed the note – i.e. the homeowners).  The beneficiaries can easily substitute in a new trustee if that occurs.  But what if Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) is named as the beneficiary?  Consider California Mortgage and Deed of Trust Practice § 1.39 (3d ed Cal CEB 2008) § 1.39 (1) the Beneficiary Must Be Obligee:  The beneficiary must be an obligee of the secured obligation (usually the payee of a note), because otherwise the deed of trust in its favor is meaningless. Watkins v Bryant (1891) 91 C 492, 27 P 775; Nagle v Macy (1858) 9 C 426. See §§ 1.8-1.19 on the need for an obligation. The deed of trust is merely an incident of the obligation and has no existence apart from it. Goodfellow v Goodfellow (1933) 219 C 548, 27 P2d 898; Adler v Sargent (1895) 109 C 42, 41 P 799; Turner v Gosden (1932) 121 CA 20, 8 P2d 505. The holder of the note, however, can enforce the deed of trust whether or not named as beneficiary or mortgagee. CC § 2936; see § 1.23.

Continue reading “The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 2”

Support Cameron/Baxter Films in support of Foreclosure Defense!

Support Cameron/Baxter Films in support of Foreclosure Defense!

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

HELP KICKSTART the Foreclosure Crisis film “COPS ‘n ROBBERS vs THE PEOPLE: the Death and Rebirth of the American Dream”. Taking the High Road. This is a movie of the People, by the People, for the People. Join our Kickstarter.com backer community and INSPIRE AMERICA to its higher conscience! VALENTINE’S DAY DEADLINE. FEB. 14! http://kck.st/hLX9W5

The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 1

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”

NEW GRANDMA IN CALIFORNIA DOES SLEUTHING AND DISCOVERS MAJOR ROBO NOTARY VIOLATIONS

NEW GRANDMA IN CALIFORNIA DOES SLEUTHING AND DISCOVERS MAJOR ROBO NOTARY VIOLATIONS WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR HOMEOWNER-BORROWERS, INVESTORS AND MAJOR BANKING & INVESTMENT FIRMS.  IS THERE IRS TAX EVASION ON THE PART OF BANKS & INVESTMENT FIRMS?

By Anita Carr
©carra2011

Anita Carr is used to discovering fraudulent activities, even when she is not employed.  In 2001 she discovered accounting irregularities at a Fortune 500 where she was a Director in Information Technology.  This led to investor lawsuits against that company for accounting fraud and insider trading.  At a prior employer she contacted the FBI and worked with them to ensure they investigated Medicare Fraud.  The CFO of that company went to prison.

Now, in fighting to determine title on her home, she has discovered something even more slimy and with much broader implications.  In an attempt to validate a ‘squiggle’ type mark on a recorded document with the Alameda County Recorder’s office, Ms. Carr felt it imperative that she obtain a copy of the page from the notarial journal from the California notary who performed the notarization of the ‘Corporation Deed of Assignment’ related to her property.

Ms. Carr, under California laws, is entitled to purchase a copy of the page in the notarial journal related to her property and so she wrote to the Orange County Recorder’s office and sent a check to cover the copy fees.  Orange County is where the notary was registered.  Within weeks she received a certified letter back from the Orange County recorder stating that they should have the notarial journal, but they did not have it.  See, once a notary is no longer a notary in California, it is the law that they must turn in their notarial journal to the county recorder.

Continue reading “NEW GRANDMA IN CALIFORNIA DOES SLEUTHING AND DISCOVERS MAJOR ROBO NOTARY VIOLATIONS”

Realized Losses in Securitization

Realized Losses in Securitization

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

It is of interest to note that no loss is calculated in securitized transactions until the loan is liquidated.  It is also of value to note that usually the principal and interest is advanced until the loan is liquidated (as I saw in a case where it was stated by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company in an answer to discovery).  So principal and interest payments are made by the servicers and/or trustees, and no loss is actually realized until after the house is foreclosed upon and sold to a 3rd party.  So what came first, the default or the loss?  No default occurs until the loan is liquidated, which doesn’t occur until after the foreclosure sale.  This means the homes are sold while the loans are current.  I would venture to say that nearly ALL foreclosures in at least the last 10 years on homes with securitized transactions, have been fraudulent and invalid.  This is because the paperwork used to foreclose is VOID.  Not voidable, but VOID.

Take a look at these definitions from the Argent Securities Inc. 2003-W6 Trust:

State Principal Balance
As to any mortgage loan or manufactured housing contract, the principal balance of the mortgage loan or manufactured housing contract as of the cut-off date, after application of all scheduled principal payments due on or before the cut-off date, whether or not received, reduced by all amounts, including advances by the master servicer, allocable to principal that are distributed to securityholders on or before the date of determination, and as further reduced to the extent that any realized loss thereon has been, or had it not been covered by a form of credit support, would have been, allocated to one or more classes of securities on or before the determination date.

Advance
As to any Mortgage Loan or REO Property, any advance made by the Master Servicer or a successor Master Servicer in respect of any Distribution Date representing the aggregate of all payments of principal and interest, net of the Servicing Fee, that were due during the related Due Period on the Mortgage Loans and that were delinquent on the related Determination Date, plus certain amounts representing assumed payments not covered by any current net income on the Mortgaged Properties acquired by foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure as determined pursuant to Section 4.03.

Determination Date
With respect to each Distribution Date, the 10th day of the calendar month in which such Distribution Date occurs or, if such 10th day is not a Business Day, the Business Day immediately preceding such 10th day.

Continue reading “Realized Losses in Securitization”