Title Crisis

Title Crisis

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

If you thought this was a foreclosure crisis brought about by the Mortgage Meltdown, you would be wrong.  If this were a foreclosure crisis only those in foreclosure would be the ones having problems.  And only those loans in foreclosure would be the ones having title issues and “robo-signer” issues.  I cannot say this loud enough: FORECLOSURE IS NOT THE PROBLEM.  Homeowners not making payments is not the problem.  “Freeing up” credit to stimulate lending is not the problem.  If you didn’t get a subprime loan, and yours is a 30 year fixed, you are at risk of a clouded title almost as much as anyone in foreclosure.  In fact, if you have refinanced or purchased your house from 2000 or later, you could easily have a defect in title.  Since I am not a lawyer and can only give myself legal advice, I will only discuss my own case.  And of course these are only my opinions based on my knowledge, education, training and research.  Apparently my title company thinks my title is good.  I know because somebody asked them and they said it was good.  At the end of the article I will explain why they would say that.  What they meant to say was “Everything is great because we, as a title company, are not at risk at all based on our review of your title”. Continue reading “Title Crisis”

FTC Consent Judgment and Order against BAC Home Loans Servicing

FTC Consent Judgment and Order against BAC Home Loans Servicing

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Am I the only one who missed this Consent Judgment and Order against BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (hereinafter “BAC”) and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (hereinafter “Countrywide”) from the Federal Trade Commission?  They seem to have put quite a damper in what they can and cannot do.  Has BAC complied with the following since this order dated June 15, 2010:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within one-hundred fifty (150) days from the date of entry of this Order, Defendants, their officers, employees, agents, representatives, and all other Persons or entities in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division, or other device, are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined, in connection with the Servicing of any Loan, from failing to disclose Clearly and Prominently the following information: Continue reading “FTC Consent Judgment and Order against BAC Home Loans Servicing”

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

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

Consolidated Listing of All Cease and Desist Consent Orders Issued on April 13, 2011

Consolidated Listing of All Cease and Desist Consent Orders Issued on April 13, 2011

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Due to the volume of requests, here is a listing of all known Cease and Desist Consent Orders issued in April 2011 in regards to the Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices.

Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices

Cease and Desist Consent Orders Department of Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency OTS Board of Governers for the Federal Reserve System FDIC FHFA
Bank of America x        
Citibank x        
HSBC x        
JPMorgan Chase Bank x        
US Bank x        
PNC Bank x        
MetLife Bank x        
Wells Fargo Bank x        
Aurora Bank   x      
EverBank   x      
EverBank Financial Corp   x      
IMB HoldCo LLC   x      
OneWest Bank   x      
Sovereign Bank   x      
MERSCORP and MERS x x x x x
LPS Default and DocX x x x x  
SunTrust     x    
Ally Bank / Ally Financial / Residential Capital / GMAC Mortgage     x x  

Who to Contact Regarding Mortgage Fraud

Who to Contact Regarding Mortgage Fraud

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The following is a press release issued by the  Department of Justice FBI’s Sacramento Office.  It represents a fairly comprehensive list of who is going after mortgage fraud.  While this press release covers the Sacramento and Fresno areas of California, it is highly likely there is a similar task force in your area.

Department of Justice Press Release

white spacer
For Immediate Release
June 16, 2011		 United States Attorney’s Office
Eastern District of California
Contact: (916) 554-2700 (916) 554-2700

U.S. Attorney Announces Results of Mortgage Fraud Prosecutions in 12 Months Since Operation Stolen Dreams Continue reading “Who to Contact Regarding Mortgage Fraud”

Hundreds of Years of Title Destroyed in a Decade and a Half

Hundreds of Years of Title Destroyed in a Decade and a Half

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Neil F. Garfield, Esq. just posted the following article:

TITLE CRISIS: EVEN IF YOU PAID CASH FOR YOUR HOME, TITLE STILL IN DOUBT — and you could be “underwater”

Posted on June 18, 2011 by Neil Garfield

What nearly everyone is missing is that any property that was mortgaged at any point in the last 15 years may have serious title defects.  Here is the scenario:

  1. A house is purchased or refinanced with a mortgage
  2. At some point in the future the house is refinanced again or sold
  3. A title company sends a payoff amount to “an entity”
  4. “An entity” issues either a substitution of trustee and full reconveyance or a full reconveyance (or other type of document used to release the loan)
  5. Repeat ad nauseum (or this only happened one time) Continue reading “Hundreds of Years of Title Destroyed in a Decade and a Half”

What did the Attorneys for OneWest Learn at Trial?

What did the Attorneys for OneWest Learn at Trial?

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

From the United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District of California Bankruptcy No. 09-19263-PB13 (RS No. CNR-2), the Honorable Laura S. Taylor presiding (Not for Publication).  OneWest submitted a motion for relief from stay as a secured creditor.  This means they are the one with money at risk and there is security for the collateral (a Deed of Trust securing the debtors home).  Attorneys had submitted this information and much more on behalf of OneWest.  OneWest used a Brian Burnett to provide a declaration stating under penalty of perjury that OneWest was the real party in interest in connection with the Stay Motion.  Mr. Burnett also stated under penalty of perjury that: (a) OneWest received an interest in the Trust Deed pursuant to an assignment attached to the OneWest Declaration; and (b) that OneWest is “holder and in actual physical possession of the original Promissory Note dated July 14, 2007 …”.  A copy of the note (unendorsed) was attached to the declaration.  This note was identical to the note attached to the Claim (Proof of Claim).

At trial, Charles Boyle, an Assistant Vice President in the Default Risk Management Group, Litigation Department of OneWest, testified, among other things, that the beneficiary of the Loan is Freddie Mac.  This testimony was not consistent with the OneWest Declaration (by Mr. Burnett).  The court required more information after the trial in order to decide the outcome.

OneWest’s post-trial documents contained factual assertions inconsistent with the OneWest Declaration and claim.  OneWest now provided a new copy of the note with an allonge dated July 24, 2007 evidencing a transfer from Original Lender to “IndyMc Bank, FSB” and bore an endorsement in blank from IndyMac Bank FSB. Continue reading “What did the Attorneys for OneWest Learn at Trial?”

County Recorder First in Nation to Step Forward and Reject Robo-Signed Documents

County Recorder First in Nation to Step Forward and Reject Robo-Signed Documents

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The news release from Massachusetts speaks for itself:  County Recorders Surprised to Find Acknowledgements Cannot be Relied Upon.

New release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

 Salem, MA

June 7th, 2011

Contact:

Kevin Harvey, 1st Assistant Register

978-542-1724

[email protected]

Jeff Thigpen, Register of Deeds

336-451-5300

[email protected]

Massachusetts Register of Deeds John O’Brien is first in the nation to say no to recording robo-signed documents; North Carolina Register of Deeds, Jeff Thigpen agrees. Continue reading “County Recorder First in Nation to Step Forward and Reject Robo-Signed Documents”

Georgia Supreme Court – Aurora vs. Veatch

Georgia Supreme Court – Aurora vs. Veatch

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Title does not pass with a forged deed, even to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the forgery .  Affirmed unanimously.

View the ruling: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Aurora-v-Veatch-forged-deed-and-bona-fide-purchaser.pdf

View Video of Appellant Aurora Loan Services: http://multimedia.dailyreportonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Weber_Kimberly_101810.mp4

View Video of Appellee John Macelray Veatch: http://multimedia.dailyreportonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Robinson_John_101810.mp4

Internal Revenue Service Publication 938 – REMICs Reporting Information

Internal Revenue Service Publication 938 – REMICs Reporting Information

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Publication 938 contains a directory listing of REMICs and CDOs.  It contains newly created REMICs and CDOs as well as amended listings to existing REMICs and CDOs.  Interestingly the IRS did not publish this publication for 2008.  Why is this interesting?  It is the peak of the meltdown with the failure of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.  Why is the IRS keeping this information a secret?  I have heard many interesting conspiracy theories, but my guess is “they” feel “we” can’t handle the truth.   From my review of these documents, I only have more questions.  Why are some REMICs not listed?  If Wells Fargo claims that World Savings Bank loans were held in house and not securitized, why are so many World Savings REMICs reported to the IRS?  Why is the REMIC claiming to hold my loan not listed in any of these documents?  Is it a law that all REMICs have to report themselves to the IRS for publication?

The Introduction to Publication 938 for 1996 states:

This publication contains directories relating to real estate mortgage investment conduits (REMICs) and collaterized debt obligations (CDO’s). The directory for each calendar quarter is based on information submitted to the Internal Revenue Service during that quarter. This publication is only available on the IRS electronic bulletin board and the Internet.
For each quarter, there is:
• A directory of new REMICs and CDOs,
and
• A section containing amended listings.
You can use the directory to find the representative of the REMIC or the issuer of the CDO from whom you can request tax information. The amended listing section shows changes to previously listed REMICs and CDOs.
The directory for each calendar quarter will be added to this publication approximately six weeks after the end of the quarter. Continue reading “Internal Revenue Service Publication 938 – REMICs Reporting Information”