Securitization – Page 8 – DTC Systems Inc

California Appeals Court: Notice of Default is Void if Description of Default Includes “if any”

California Appeals Court: Notice of Default is Void if Description of Default Includes “if any”

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thank you to HYDROGENE for this one. According to this decision, the “if any” in the following of a Notice of Default voids the document:

TOGETHER WITH LATE CHARGES AS SET FORTH IN SAID NOTE AND DEED OF TRUST, ADVANCES, ASSESSMENTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES, IF ANY

UPDATE NOTE added 1/9/2012: The Supreme Court of California denied review of this case but ordered that the opinion be not officially published (See California Court–Rules 976, 977 and 979)

Excerpt (fairly long):

Validity Of Notice Of Default
EMC sought to exercise the power of sale in the Deed of Trust on Anolik’s home based on Anolik’s alleged breach of various obligations secured by the Deed of Trust. Anolik alleged in the fourth cause of action in his second amended complaint (for wrongful foreclosure) that “the events of default as alleged . . . in the Notice of Default . . . [we]re false and untrue” and that “the Notice of Default and Election to Sell [wa]s void” as a result.

The trial court concluded the Notice of Default “was proper and is not invalid or void.” Anolik contends the trial court erred in this conclusion. We agree. “The procedure for foreclosing on security by a trustee’s sale pursuant to a deed of trust is set forth in Civil Code section 2924 et seq.”5 (Miller v. Cote (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 888, 894.) Because nonjudicial foreclosure is a “drastic sanction” and a “draconian remedy” (Baypoint Mortgage Corp. v. Crest Premium Real Estate etc. Trust (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 818, 827, 830), “[t]he statutory requirements must be strictly complied with.” (Miller, at p. 894.) Continue reading “California Appeals Court: Notice of Default is Void if Description of Default Includes “if any””

JPMorgan (WaMu) Dismissal Overruled and Judicial Notice of Recorded Documents DENIED

JPMorgan (WaMu) Dismissal Overruled and Judicial Notice of Recorded Documents DENIED

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Attorney J. Edward Kerley (Hereford Kerley LLP) presents a 7 page complaint (4 pages when you remove the case heading and the whitespace) with 4 causes of action (Leon Taylor vs. JPMorgan Chase). JPMorgan Chase lawyers respond with 211 pages (including exhibits, which make up about 190 pages +/-). The original note and Deed of Trust named Washington Mutual Bank, FA as the Lender and Beneficiary.

Excerpt from the complaint:

On or before February 27, 2007, Mr. Taylor is informed and believes that his promissory note was sold by Washington Mutual Bank, FA, to WaMu Asset Acceptance Corporation.

..

The challanged foreclosure is based upon an Assignment of Deed of Trust dated March 15, 2011. JPMorgan, as successor in interest to Washington Mutual Bank, FA, purports to assign its beneficial interests in the deed of trust to Bank of America, National Association. The assignment is void and improper because JPMorgan has no right or interest in the promissory note as of March 15, 2011, and such purported assignment is fraudulent and false. Continue reading “JPMorgan (WaMu) Dismissal Overruled and Judicial Notice of Recorded Documents DENIED”

INVESTORS COMING OUT OF THE SHADOWS: BANKS’ WORST NIGHTMARE

INVESTORS COMING OUT OF THE SHADOWS: BANKS’ WORST NIGHTMARE

By Neil F. Garfield
LivingLies.wordpress.com

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/mbs-investors-in-revolt-ultimatums-to-us-bank-and-wells-fargo/

EDITOR’S ANALYSIS: For those who have followed this Blog for any length of time, this news will come as no surprise. Ultimately, the proof and the relief sought by homeowners will come from investors who demand answers to what happened to their money when they purchased mortgage backed securities and pooled their money to fund mortgages.

The result is a pincer action, to put it military terms, where the creditors and the debtors are making the same allegations against the intermediaries who stole from both sides, “borrowed” the loss to claim Federal bailout money, and left both sides holding the bag. Continue reading “INVESTORS COMING OUT OF THE SHADOWS: BANKS’ WORST NIGHTMARE”

Why Did the Banks Need to Falsify and Forge Fabricated Documents?

Posted [on LivingLies] on January 5, 2012 by Neil Garfield

The investors who purchased David Stern’s foreclosure mill have taken the extraordinary step of announcing publicly that they had been duped into buying a “criminal enterprise.” Obviously they didn’t want to get caught up in the dragnet of prosecutors looking for convictions. Nobody would spend $60 million like these investors did and then announce to the world that not only was it worthless, it was worse than worthless. It turns out that once they owned it they discovered that the entire enterprise was based upon criminal and other illegal or improper acts. It will soon be obvious that virtually all the foreclosure mills operated identically to Stern because they were owned and operated by the same people.

Those criminal acts were all about pushing foreclosures through the system. The end result of foreclosure is that somebody gets the house upon entry of a “credit bid” which is to say that they don’t pay cash, they just submit a “bid” based upon the fact that the property was the collateral for money that was due them. Since Stern was not taking the homes, and it is obvious that others were taking the homes, the question is why did they need to go through all those gyrations and subject themselves to prison time if the mortgages were legitimate? Continue reading “Why Did the Banks Need to Falsify and Forge Fabricated Documents?”

Who is Responsible for the Conduct of Foreclosure Mill Law Firms?

Who is Responsible for the Conduct of Foreclosure Mill Law Firms?

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Here is the analysis, which comes word for word from the Interagency review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices in 2010 (available here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/InterAgency_Review_4900701.pdf).

The Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), referred to as the agencies, conducted on-site reviews of foreclosure processing at 14 federally regulated mortgage servicers during the fourth quarter of 2010.

This report provides a summary of the review findings and an overview of the potential impacts associated with instances of foreclosure-processing weaknesses that occurred industrywide. In addition, this report discusses the supervisory response made public simultaneous with the issuance of this report, as well as expectations going forward to address the cited deficiencies. The supervisory measures employed by the agencies are intended to ensure safe and sound mortgage-servicing and foreclosure processing business practices are implemented. The report also provides an overview of how national standards for mortgage servicing can help address specific industrywide weaknesses identified during these reviews. Continue reading “Who is Responsible for the Conduct of Foreclosure Mill Law Firms?”

Investors Admit Criminal Enterprise at David J. Stern Law Firm in Florida

Investors Admit Criminal Enterprise at David J. Stern Law Firm in Florida

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Note the following from Neil F. Garfield on LivingLies:

Posted on January 5, 2012 by Neil Garfield

EDITOR’S COMMENT: This is the start of what we have been waiting for. Investors who purchased David Stern’s operation — a foreclosure mill that had been bank-rolled literally by the Banks. They actually have the necessary files, documentation and proof needed because they now own the company and they realize they were induced to buy a “criminal enterprise.”

This is what I have been talking about. Investors of all shapes and sizes are starting to awaken to the fact that the entire foreclosure process has been permeated by false statements as to the amounts due, the identity of the creditor, and the documents that “perfected” the lien, transferred the loan and were the basis for foreclosure. None of the foreclosures are real. That is a grandiose statement, but it will prove to be true. Continue reading “Investors Admit Criminal Enterprise at David J. Stern Law Firm in Florida”

In Re Sutter Appeal in Michigan – No Mortgage Exists

In Re Sutter Appeal in Michigan – No Mortgage Exists

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Here is another case of a fabricated loan document. Appellants U.S. National Bank and Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., appeal the order of the district court overturning a judgment of the bankruptcy court granting them an equitable mortgage on property owned by Debtors Daniel and Sheryl Sutter. The appeals court decision summary:

The district court correctly held that no mortgage, equitable or otherwise, exists on the Sutters’ property. Therefore, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court..

Download the order here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Daniel_Sutter_v._U.S._National_Bank_Forged_Mortgage.pdf

Idaho Takes a Big Bite Out of MERS

Idaho Takes a Big Bite Out of MERS

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Idaho takes a big bite out of MERS in this ruling. Summary judgment for the homeowner is granted, summary judgment for the MetLife Home Loans is denied. Check out this (rather long) excerpt:

B. Defendant Lacks Statutory Authority to Maintain a Non-Judicial Foreclosure Under I.C. 45-1505(1) the trustee may foreclose a trust deed if “The trust deed, any assignments of the trust deed by … the beneficiary … are recorded in mortgage records in counties in which the property described in the deed is situated”. The only recorded assignment of the trust deed is by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) to MetLife Bank, N.A. dated February 23, 2009. That document purports to transfer all beneficial interest MERS had to MetLife. Continue reading “Idaho Takes a Big Bite Out of MERS”

Florida Attorney General Says Law Firms are Creating Invalid Assignments

Florida Attorney General Says Law Firms are Creating Invalid Assignments

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The Florida Attorney General is asking the Florida Supreme Court to certify the following question:

Whether the creation of invalid assignments of mortgages by a law firm and subsequent use of such documents by the firm in foreclosure litigation on behalf of the purported assignee is an unfair or deceptive trade practice under FDUTPA which may be the subject of an investigation by the Office of the Attorney General.

Download the Pleading here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Stern-Motion-for-Certification-before_FL_Supreme-Court.pdf

Balderas vs Countrywide – Federal Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal

Balderas vs Countrywide – Federal Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

You do not have to win your case to survive the motions to dismiss, you only need to allege facts to support a theory that is not facially implausible. Here is the last paragraph from this ruling:

[9] As we’ve said before, “so long as the plaintiff alleges facts to support a theory that is not facially implausible, the court’s skepticism is best reserved for later stages of the proceedings when the plaintiff case can be rejected on evidentiary grounds.” In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation, 536 F.3d 1049, 1057 (9th Cir. 2008). Here, the Balderases clearly alleged in their complaint that they were never given a Notice of Right to Cancel that complied with TILA. If they can prove up this allegation at trial, they’ll win. A complaint containing allegations that, if proven, present a winning case is not subject to dismissal under 12(b)(6), no matter how unlikely such winning outcome may appear to the district court.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

Download ruling here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Balderas-v.-Countrywide.pdf