Update on Foreclosures in Oregon

Update on Foreclosures in Oregon

David Ambrose
Ambrose Law Group, LLC

Here is the latest, which while limited to Oregon, certainly can be applicable to any other states permitting nonjudicial foreclosure actions but requiring the recording of assignments of the mortgage or trust deed. 

You may recall the postings about the decision of Judge Alley in U.S Bankruptcy Court in Oregon (McCoy v BNC Mortgage), finding that in to proceed with nonjudicial foreclosures in Oregon, the applicable statute requires that there be a chain of recorded assignments (which, by the way, in Oregon you cannot record a document unless it is notarized), from the original beneficiary to the current beneficiary, and that MERS is not the beneficiary.

Continue reading “Update on Foreclosures in Oregon”

Foreclosure Mill Law Firms Starting to Meltdown

Foreclosure Mill Law Firms Starting to Meltdown

Dan Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Foreclosure mill law firm the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. will be ceasing the practice of law with respect to all pending foreclosure matters in the State of Florida.  In an 8-K filing dated March 7, 2011 by DJSP Enterprises, Inc., the following was given:

“Item 8.01 Other Events.

DJSP Enterprises, Inc.’s (the “Company’s”) primary customer, the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., has announced that it will be ceasing the practice of law with respect to all pending foreclosure matters in the State of Florida as of March 31, 2011.  As a result, the Company does not expect to receive any further file referrals from this customer.”

Continue reading “Foreclosure Mill Law Firms Starting to Meltdown”

Anger Growing Over the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s Regulation of National Banks

Anger Growing Over the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s Regulation of National Banks

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Instead of regulating the national banks as they have been mandated, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) appears to actually be promoting the outrageous behavior of the banks.  According to various groups, “Right now, more than 500 people are making lots of noise outside the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency – the worst bank regulator that you never heard of.   They are demanding that the OCC stop throwing homeowners under the bus in the their tireless efforts to protect the big banks.”

Apparently the OCC does not know that citizens are using the Internet to understand what they are doing.  The OCC believes it can stand up against the very people of this country that it was specifically designed to protect – the citizens who are being used as pawns.  The people are being taken for a ride by the national banks who are and have been operating outside of their authority for many years (at least 5 years, probably much longer).  How can the banks be operating outside of their authority?  When they operate against public policy, including when they have inadequate risk measurements in place and inadequate internal controls.  This is obvious from their actions over the last 5 years – including the use of robo-signers, flagrant notary violations, inadequate affidavits and declarations, etc., etc.  The list goes on and on, but this is nothing new to the OCC.  After all, they have given legal opinions based on this very information.  They know exactly what is going on but apparently refuse to act – or are completely incompetent.  Because they are doing the very opposite of what they have given in their legal opinions, it is apparent that they are not incompetent, but are refusing  to enforce their very own regulations. Continue reading “Anger Growing Over the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s Regulation of National Banks”

MERS Getting Crushed in Oregon – Three Rulings Against MERS in February Alone

MERS Getting Crushed in Oregon – Three Rulings Against MERS in February Alone

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Brent Hunsberger from the Oregonian has reported that hundreds of Oregon foreclosure sales have been stopped after judges’ rulings (http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/03/rulings_put_brakes_on_hundreds.html).   Two rulings are from October 2010, but three rulings were from February 2011.  Apparently Oregon has a law requiring all intervening assignments be recorded.  This appears to be a problem since MERS was specifically designed to hide the beneficial ownership of the loan and to avoid the payment of taxes on the transfer or assignment of the loan.  The interesting thing is this article from the Oregonian says that the legislature needs to “fix” this issue.  But the current laws appear to be sufficient.  It wasn’t the homeowners across the United States who decided to defraud the homeowners, county and state governments, it was the banks that were looking to defraud homeowners, county and state governments.

Continue reading “MERS Getting Crushed in Oregon – Three Rulings Against MERS in February Alone”

JP Morgan Chase and McCarthy & Holthus – Destroying America, One House at a Time

JP Morgan Chase and McCarthy & Holthus – Destroying America, One House at a Time

By Martin Andelman
Mandelman Matters
http://mandelman.ml-implode.com

 

Homeowner Suffers Horrific Injustice at the Hands of JPMorgan Chase

http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2011/03/homeowner-suffers-horrific-injustice-at-the-hands-of-jpmorgan-chase

For over two years I’ve had a front row seat for the foreclosure crisis, the by-product of our government’s complete mishandling of the worst economic downturn in seventy years.

During that time I’ve been exposed to some pretty horrific things… people living in their cars with a child sleeping in the trunk… the eviction of an 89 year-old couple… I’ve gotten to know what that fear sounds like and feels like… the fear of losing one’s home while the country talks about you as being nothing more than an “irresponsible borrower,” someone who never should have bought your home in the first place, even though you may have lived in it for 30 years.

What I saw this past week, however, was something new for me… I’d heard of things like this happening before, written about them, even.  But, I had never seen anything like it, up close and personal.

As a warning… this story is not for the squeamish.  If you’re pregnant, or have heart disease, or just want to go on pretending that your country is still a place of which you’re proud… it’s better that you click off now… because this one isn’t going to make you laugh.

Continue reading “JP Morgan Chase and McCarthy & Holthus – Destroying America, One House at a Time”

Securitization Workshop for Attorneys March 19th 2011 in San Francisco

Securitization Workshop for Attorneys March 19th 2011 in San Francisco

By Daniel Edstrom

Join us for our 3rd Securitization Workshop for Attorneys being held in San Francisco on March 19th, 2011.  Visit the event website for more information: http://securedocumentresearch.eventbrite.com

This workshop has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) by the State Bar of California.  Total credit hours approved are 6.75 hours.

Description of event:

SECURITIZATION WORKSHOP FOR ATTORNEYS
March 19th, 2011 – in San Francisco, CALIFORNIA

Continue reading “Securitization Workshop for Attorneys March 19th 2011 in San Francisco”

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”

Irreconcilable Differences… I want a Mortgage Divorce!

Irreconcilable Differences… I want a Mortgage Divorce!

By James Macklin
Secure Document Research

Promissory Note Terms Vs. PSA/Prosectus Terms

When we are handed a voluminous stack of documents at the closing table for our mortgage transaction, a Borrower is expected to make a decision based upon the duty and care that the party who drafted these “investment contracts” has placed into them. However, none of us at the closing table has any idea what most of the words, phrases, and legal terminologies actually means… especially those affecting our rights as a consumer and as a real property owner.
Within the typical language of a Pooling and Servicing Agreement executed by the players of the securitization financing, there are countless references to the “interests” of the asset being conveyed, or, your Note and Deed. Interests are a finicky word of art used. The word simply means this: the asset, along with all of its’ benefits and liabilities. These are the “interests” being conveyed with the sale, set-over, transfer, conveyance, etc. So, under the terms of the Note we signed, look to the section titled: “Who is obligated under the Note” (usually sec. nine (9)). Here you will find that myriad entities may be, and probably are, also obligated under this same Note. These are the terms you have agreed to and bargained for. But the banking intermediaries would have us believe otherwise, as exhibited in the PSA under such language as: “The Depositor, Sponsor/Seller, Swap Counterparty, Master Servicer, Trustee do not intend for any obligation of themselves or their agents or employees to arise as a result of this Agreement”. This is contradictive to the terms and conditions that we have agreed to. Because the intervening assignments are a functional necessity to the bankruptcy remoteness of these assets, the specific substance of the PSA must be followed, including the mandate for the indorsement of each intervening assignment, along with the recordation of those assignment in the proper land title records office within the State of jurisdiction.
Let’s go back to the language of the “Who is Obligated” section of our Note. Notice that anyone who endorses the instrument is also obligated under the Note. Does this create an unknown Obligor at closing? If an un-named Beneficiary is the result of the unilateral agreement known as a Promissory Note”, how do we have the understanding necessary to execute such a critical document? It is the contention of this author, supported by the very agreements signed under oath and filed for record with the SEC, that “interests” and “obligations” are synonomous within the four corners of the agreement we signed…and the agreements signed by the intermediaries. A court of competent jurisdiction shall be posed these foundational questions very soon, and often. Are we a party to these agreements known as PSA/Prospectus? If we do a simple word search on each of these and look for references to: Borrower, Mortgagor, Obligor, we find these terms are typically used in excess of 60-75 times. Yet we were never disclosed the terms and conditions of the actual “loan” transaction as it truly was executed, and the rights, duties and responsibilities of the intermediaries. These are material disclosures relative to fees, expenses and various credit enhancements which are attributed to the Borrowers’ payment stream.
A divorce from this menagerie of deceit is not only appropriate, but a right that is being tried in many courtrooms. I believe that the judiciary will be tested on many platforms and small but visceral victories shall carry the day.