Category: Information

Legal Standing At Inception

Legal Standing At Inception

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

No I am not an attorney and no I am not providing legal advice.  This is the name of an article I just read posted on Neil Garfield’s LivingLies blog.  The article is from Mark Stopa, an attorney in Florida.  Read this article first and then come back and read my comments below: http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/legal-standing-at-inception/

When I saw the title, I thought awesome, they will go back to the origination of the loan.  But they went back to the time the judicial foreclosure case was filed.  This is a good argument and it should be fairly straight forward, or at least as straight forward as anything can be in a legal proceeding.  What I was looking for was what I heard this last week from somebody.  They went to bankruptcy court and told the judge that they had evidence that their loan was table funded, which means the named lender did not provide the money to fund the loan.  The money to fund the loan came from an unknown and undisclosed third party.  The bankruptcy judge made a simple statement.  The judge said that if the named originator did not fund the loan, then they have nothing to transfer, and the movant in the motion for relief from stay (the bank) would therefore have nothing.  This judge understands that the note is only evidence of the obligation, it is not the actual obligation.  Transfer of the note or the security instrument (Mortgage, Deed of Trust, Security Deed or Mortgage Deed) without an interest in the obligation itself, is meaningless.  That is the type of standing issue that I would like to see attorneys make in all states.

Is this why under Regulation “Z” table funded loans have the presumption of being predatory?

Deed of Trust Example Language

[Picture: MERS Shareholders]
Deed of Trust Example Language

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC System, Inc.

I have read numerous cases including appeals court cases (both Federal and State).  It appears to me that the actual language from the Security Instrument regarding MERS is being brought up or argued in a very general way and without a thorough analysis.  I am not an attorney and will not provide legal advice to anyone.  This is not legal advice but provided only for educational and informational purposes only.  This is simply what a standard CALIFORNIA-Single Family-Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac UNIFORM INSTRUMENT WITH MERS Form 3005 looks like, in relation to the main MERS language (not all inclusive).

  • This security Instrument secures to Lender: (i) the repayment of the Loan, and all renewals, extensions and modifications of the Note; and (ii) the performance of Borrower’s covenants and agreements under this Security Instrument and the Note.
  • For this purpose, Borrower irrevocably grants and conveys to Trustee, in trust, with power of sale, the following described property […]
  • “MERS” is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
  • MERS is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument
  • MERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns. 
  • The beneficiary of this Security Instrument is MERS (solely as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) and the successors and assigns of MERS.
  • Borrower understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS (as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) has the right: to exercise any or all of those interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property; and to take any action required of Lender including, but not limited to, releasing and canceling this Security Instrument 

    •  

Ohio Supreme Court Certifies Questions Regarding GMAC Robo-signing Issues and Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act

Ohio Supreme Court Certifies Questions Regarding GMAC Robo-signing Issues and Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

On August 24, 2011, the Ohio Supreme Court agreed to hear the following questions:

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULING

On review of preliminary memoranda pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 18.6. The court will answer the following questions:
1. “Does the servicing of a borrower’s residential mortgage loan constitute a `consumer transaction’ as defined in the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act., R.C. 1345.01(A)?”

2. “Does the prosecution of a foreclosure action by a mortgage servicer constitute a `consumer transaction’ as defined in the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act., R.C. 1345.01(A)?”

3. “Is an entity that services a residential mortgage loan, and prosecutes a foreclosure action, a `supplier . . . engaged in the business of effecting or soliciting consumer transactions’ as defined in the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act., R.C. 1345.01(C)?'”

O’DONNELL, J., dissents.

Ruling: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/State-ex-rel-DeWine-v.-GMAC-Mtge-LLC.pdf

Presentation regarding Mortgage Servicing Origination and Foreclosure Issues: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/08-Mortgage-Servicing-Origination-and-Foreclosure-Issues-Jeff-Loeser-presentation.pdf

Interesting California Civil Codes

Interesting California Civil Codes

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Those who haven’t read these should read through them for educational purposes.

California Civil Code Selections

1044

Property of any kind may be transferred, except as otherwise provided by this Article.

1045

A mere possibility, not coupled with an interest, cannot be transferred.

1046

A right of reentry, or of repossession for breach of condition subsequent, can be transferred.

1047

Any person claiming title to real property in the adverse possession of another may transfer it with the same effect as if in actual possession.

1054

A grant takes effect, so as to vest the interest intended to be transferred, only upon its delivery by the grantor.

1056

A grant cannot be delivered to the grantee conditionally. Delivery to him, or to his agent as such, is necessarily absolute, and the instrument takes effect thereupon, discharged of any condition on which the delivery was made.

1057

A grant may be deposited by the grantor with a third person, to be delivered on performance of a condition, and, on delivery by the depositary, it will take effect. While in the possession of the third person, and subject to condition, it is called an escrow. Continue reading "Interesting California Civil Codes"

OCC Guidance on Potential Issues With Foreclosed Residential Properties

Guidance on Potential Issues With Foreclosed Residential Properties

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has issued the following guidance in respect to foreclosed properties:

OCC 2011-49
Subject: Foreclosed Properties

Date: December 14, 2011

To: Chief Executive Officers of All National Banks and Federal Savings Associations, Department and Division Heads, and All Examining Personnel

Description: Guidance on Potential Issues With Foreclosed Residential Properties

Background
In the current economic environment, national banks and federal savings associations (collectively, banks) are facing challenges resulting from unprecedented numbers of troubled residential mortgage loans. Foreclosures on residential properties also are occurring in unprecedented numbers and are projected to continue this trend in the near term. Among the many consequences of high levels of foreclosures are growing inventories of foreclosed residential and commercial properties. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is providing guidance to banks on obligations and risks related to foreclosed property. This guidance highlights legal, safety and soundness, and community impact considerations.1 It primarily focuses on residential foreclosed properties, but many of the same principles apply to commercial properties. Continue reading “OCC Guidance on Potential Issues With Foreclosed Residential Properties”

Nevada Attorney General Sues Lender Processing Services for Consumer Fraud

Nevada Attorney General Sues Lender Processing Services for Consumer Fraud

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The Nevada Attorney General released the following information today:

Carson City, NV – Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto announced today a lawsuit against Lender Processing Services, Inc., DOCX, LLC, LPS Default Solutions, Inc. and other subsidiaries of LPS (collectively known “LPS”) for engaging in deceptive practices against Nevada consumers.

The lawsuit, filed on December 15, 2011, in the 8th Judicial District of Nevada, follows an extensive investigation into LPS’ default servicing of residential mortgages in Nevada, specifically loans in foreclosure. The lawsuit includes allegations of widespread document execution fraud, deceptive statements made by LPS about efforts to correct document fraud, improper control over foreclosure attorneys and the foreclosure process, misrepresentations about LPS’ fees and services, and evidence of an overall press for speed and volume that prevented the necessary and proper focus on accuracy and integrity in the foreclosure process.

“The robo-signing crisis in Nevada has been fueled by two main problems: chaos and speed,” said Attorney General Masto. “We will protect the integrity of the foreclosure process. This lawsuit is the next, logical step in holding the key players in the foreclosure fraud crisis accountable.” Continue reading “Nevada Attorney General Sues Lender Processing Services for Consumer Fraud”

SEC CHARGES FORMER FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC EXECUTIVES WITH SECURITIES FRAUD

SEC CHARGES FORMER FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC EXECUTIVES WITH SECURITIES FRAUD

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The Securities and Exchange Commission just released the following information:

Companies Agree to Cooperate in SEC Actions

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2011-267

Washington, D.C., Dec. 16, 2011 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged six former top executives of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) with securities fraud, alleging they knew and approved of misleading statements claiming the companies had minimal holdings of higher-risk mortgage loans, including subprime loans.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac each entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with the Commission in which each company agreed to accept responsibility for its conduct and not dispute, contest, or contradict the contents of an agreed-upon Statement of Facts without admitting nor denying liability. Each also agreed to cooperate with the Commission’s litigation against the former executives. In entering into these Agreements, the Commission considered the unique circumstances presented by the companies’ current status, including the financial support provided to the companies by the U.S. Treasury, the role of the Federal Housing Finance Agency as conservator of each company, and the costs that may be imposed on U.S. taxpayers. Continue reading “SEC CHARGES FORMER FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC EXECUTIVES WITH SECURITIES FRAUD”

US Bank is not the Note Holder – North Carolina: Bass vs. US Bank

US Bank is not the Note Holder – North Carolina: Bass vs. US Bank

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

This case is listed here without comment.  The issues of endorsements, allonges, burden of proof, etc. are raised here and are very illuminating.

In the Matter of the foreclosure of a Deed of Trust executed by Tonya R. Bass in the original amount of $139,988.00 dated October 12, 2005, recorded in Book 4982, Page 86, Durham County Registry,
Substitute Trustee Services, Inc., as Substitute Trustee,

No. COA11-565.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2011.

K&L Gates, LLP, by A. Lee Hogewood III, and Brian C. Fork for Petitioner-appellant.

Legal Aid of North Carolina, Inc., by E. Maccene Brown, Gregory E. Pawlowski, John Christopher Lloyd, and Andre C. Brown, for Respondent-appellee.

ROBERT N. HUNTER, JR., Judge.

U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee, c/o Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Petitioner”) appeals the trial court’s order dismissing foreclosure proceedings against Respondent Tonya R. Bass. Petitioner assigns error to the trial court’s determination that Petitioner is not the legal holder of a promissory note executed by Respondent and therefore lacks authorization to foreclose on Respondent’s property securing the note under a deed of trust. After careful review, we affirm.

I. Factual & Procedural Background Continue reading “US Bank is not the Note Holder – North Carolina: Bass vs. US Bank”

LivingLies Post: FLORIDA SUPREME COURT RIPS UP BANKS’ PLAYBOOK

LivingLies Post: FLORIDA SUPREME COURT RIPS UP BANKS’ PLAYBOOK

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

After reading this article by Neil F. Garfield, Esq. (http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/florida-supreme-court-rips-up-banks-playbook/), I have an open question for lawyers and judges that I am pondering.  How can any “final” adjudication be final if the title to a property has not been fixed?  If title to a property is left in an inconsistent state, how can res judicata, a judgment or any other type of ruling be “final”?  If title to a property is left with, for example, a wild deed, a forgery or some other defect (or as seems to be typical – defects) rendering title unmarketable, would it not take a ruling by a judge to correct these issues?  If a UD judgment is “final” and a homeowner is evicted, and title is left defective (again, by way of example with a wild deed, forgery or some other similar type of defect), how do you get title cleared?