Eliot Spitzer and Kathleen Parker video discussing the Securitization diagram created by our own Dan Edstrom from DTC Systems.
Niday v. GMAC Mortgage LLC, et al – MERS Ruling in Oregon Part 2
Niday v. GMAC Mortgage LLC, et al – MERS Ruling in Oregon Part 2
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
Two Oregon Supreme Court Rulings came out yesterday relating to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. The first was Brandrup v. ReconTrust Co. (June 6, 2013), and the subject of this post, which is Niday v. GMAC Mortgage LLC, et al. (June 6, 2013).
Note the following quotes from this ruling:
That is so because, on the present record, MERS’ involvement in the appointment of the current trustee casts doubt on the trustee’s status.
and
But, appointments of a successor trustee may only be made by the trust deed beneficiary, ORS 86.790(3), and, as discussed, MERS is not, and never has been, the beneficiary of the trust deed for purposes of the OTDA.
The ruling is listed in part as follows:
En Banc
On review from the Court of Appeals.*
Argued and submitted on January 8, 2013.
Gregory A. Chaimov, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Portland, argued the cause for
petitioner on review Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. With him on the
brief were Frederick B. Burnside and Kevin H. Kono.
W. Jeffrey Barnes, pro hac vice, W. J. Barnes, PA, Beverly Hills, argued the cause
for respondent on review. With him on the brief was Elizabeth Lemoine, Makler
Lemoine & Goldberg, PC, Portland.
Hope A. Del Carlo, Portland, filed a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Oregon Trial
Lawyers Association.
Rolf C. Moan, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed a brief on behalf of
amicus curiae State of Oregon.
BREWER, J.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The judgment of the circuit
court is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings.
Kistler, J., concurred in part and specially concurred in part and wrote an opinion
in which Balmer, C.J. joined.
*Appeal from Clackamas County Circuit Court, Henry C. Breithaupt, Judge. 251
Or App 278, 284 P3d 1157 (2012).
Continue reading “Niday v. GMAC Mortgage LLC, et al – MERS Ruling in Oregon Part 2”
Brandrup v. ReconTrust Co. – MERS Ruling in Oregon Part 1
Brandrup v. ReconTrust Co. – MERS Ruling in Oregon Part 1
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
The Oregon Supreme Court was asked four questions, and answered as follows:
We accepted the district court’s certification and allowed the parties in the federal cases to
present their views. We answer those questions — in two instances as reframed — as
follows:
(1) “No.” For purposes of ORS 86.735(1), the “beneficiary” is the lender to whom the obligation that the trust deed secures is owed or the lender’s successor in interest. Thus, an entity like MERS, which is not a lender, may not be a trust deed’s “beneficiary,” unless it is a lender’s successor in interest.
(2) We reframe the second question as follows:
Is MERS eligible to serve as beneficiary under the Oregon Trust DeedAct where the trust deed provides 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”?Continue reading “Brandrup v. ReconTrust Co. – MERS Ruling in Oregon Part 1”
Underwater Properties
Underwater Properties
By Jim Macklin
Secure Document Research
Underwater Properties
Strategic Debt Restructuring
Strategic Debt Restructuring
By: Jim Macklin
Secure Document Research
How many property owners in this country experienced the flush of “money for nothin’ and kicks for free” during the build-up to 2008? Champagne, boats, leisurely weekends at the lake all came part & parcel to those who were able and willing to leverage themselves at the urging of their local and national banks.
Obviously, those days were hazy and fast-paced for those caught up in the whirlwind of easy money provided by Wall St. and the MBS profits. I can still see the faces and attitudes of the mortgage brokers, loan officers and title company agents who were suddenly the darlings of the communities across the U.S.
FDIC Purchase and Assumption Agreements
FDIC Purchase and Assumption Agreements
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
Along with the large number of failed banks, there are a large number of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Purchase and Assumption Agreements. The National Consumer Law Center was kind enough to publish many of them at the following web page: http://www.nclc.org/issues/failed-banks-purchase-and-assumption-agreements.html
Here is the list of Purchase and Assumption Agreements available, as well as some other information:
Purchase and Assumption Agreements
1st American State Bank
1st Centennial Bank
1st Pacific Bank of California
Access Bank
Affinity Bank
All American Bank (amendment)
Allegiance Bank of North America
Alliance Bank
Alpha Bank & Trust
Amcore Bank
Staggering Statistical Anomaly
Staggering Statistical Anomaly
By Jim Macklin
Secure Document Research
There is a staggering statistical anomaly that must be brought to light in the wake of the foreclosure crisis that has crippled capital markets across the globe. While Wall St. had its profits see glorious heights never imagined before, mid-stream America saw trillions in equity slip through their fingers.
Hedge fund managers sought to “sell-forward” as much of the tainted paper as could be heaped onto unsuspecting investment groups. Teachers’ retirement funds, firefighters, state and county workers, you know, the hardest working people in the world, were made promises of “AAA” ratings, with derivatives as a hedge against the unlikely scenario of mass defaults. When the door swung shut, and the folks who were shoveling sh*t and calling it sugar ran out of money and ran for cover…millions of homes were nearly instantaneously lost to the phantoms who were behind the entire scheme…Wall St. investment bankers.
Without any skin in the game, Wall St. has single-handedly run the biggest equity/land grab in the history of mankind…and nobody seems to mind. This leaves an inventory of empty homes strewn across this nation like an abandoned game of ball & jacks of massive proportions.
Here we go… in the United States today, there are over 18.5 million houses with nobody living in them. In the United States today, we have over 3.75 million homeless persons. The formulaic equation applied here is simple: every homeless person in the U.S. could occupy 6 homes each!
Think about the rationale being espoused to the general public through the media. The banks have taken over 1.7 trillion dollars in relief of one form or another as a result of their own careless actions. Meanwhile, millions of service veterans, single mothers, children, and innocent victims of “bad times” are filling the streets and shelters. But does anyone at the bank lift a finger to state the obvious? Of course not. The bank, instead, hordes the millions of vacant homes and simply waits for a large group of investors, or an even larger group of new, upcoming credit worthy younger Americans to pony up even more money for a home that has been prostituted out to anyone who temporarily qualifies as a “good risk”.
Does everyone see what I see? Is this not the easiest fix, making the most sense for all parties concerned? For those not yet putting this two piece puzzle together (CONGRESS), public placement of homeless, disparaged, displaced persons into a caretaker position, even if merely temporary, to insure maintenance and property care to the empty homes, and people who truly need the shelter get a place to call home…even if only temporary. One could assemble a master team of the most regionally qualified persons in need of temporary assistance (they’re not hard to locate, just go to the local shelters and ask for someone who might be interested in a home), set a rotational system of caretaking for the 6 homes that each homeless person could occupy and maintain while looking for more meaningful work, and a set of standards applied to the caretakers that matches what the banks are currently employing.
The average bank is spending nearly $12,000 per year in maintenance fees for these abandoned, empty houses. Do you think that the homeless, probably jobless, person would mind mowing a lawn once a week and possibly doing some light maintenance for $12 grand and a home? For those of you that are thinking “yeah, but what if they destroy the home, or turn it into a drug emporium?” What do you think is going on right now?
So, Congress, state worker programs, Veterans Administration, Salvation Army, Wells Fargo, Bank of America… call me, I have a really cool plan that would be amazingly simple to implement. What would be the harm in trying…a benefit to someone who hasn’t paid your nominal fee for playing the ball & jacks game you call mortgage banking?
We’ll call it: “Homes for the Homeless”. Surely some political candidate could use this premise to further their self-preserving interests.
My next blog will address a method for re-valuing property to a true net present value and getting a fresh start. Pay attention if you own multiple properties, this could reduce your debt by hundreds of thousands of dollars, and is recognized throughout the court system without litigating or arguing (much). Strategic bankruptcy! They do work and thousands of people are saving millions of dollars through the “cram-down”.
Welcome to the Machine, Video Introduction
Welcome to the Machine, Video Introduction
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
Economics 101 and Elizabeth Warren
Continue reading “Welcome to the Machine, Video Introduction”
Top Democrats Introduce Legislation to Protect Military Families from Foreclosure
Top Democrats Introduce Legislation to Protect Military Families from Foreclosure
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
Of note, among other things, is the following statement from this release:
Although federal banking regulators have refused to provide Congress with detailed information on such cases, more than 1,600 individuals are receiving compensation for violations of SCRA under amended consent orders announced in February between the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and 13 of our largest banks.
For Immediate Release
May 7, 2013
Top Democrats Introduce Legislation to
Protect Military Families from Foreclosure
Washington, D.C. (May 7, 2013)—Today, Reps. Elijah E Cummings, Mike Michaud, Adam Smith, Susan Davis, Mark Takano, and John Tierney, the Ranking Members of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, the Committee on Armed Services, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, and the Subcommittee on National Security, introduced H.R. 1842, the Military Family Home Protection Act, to strengthen foreclosure protections for U.S. military servicemembers and their families. Continue reading “Top Democrats Introduce Legislation to Protect Military Families from Foreclosure”
California First Appellate District Throws Down Unfounded WaMu, JPMorgan Chase and FDIC Purchase and Assumption Agreement Arguments
California First Appellate District Throws Down Unfounded WaMu, JPMorgan Chase and FDIC Purchase and Assumption Agreement Arguments
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
Today, February 11, 2013 the First Appellate District came out with an opinion CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION throwing out Chase arguments, mainly because lack of foundation. Here is the entire opinion:
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
|
DIVISION TWO SCOTT CALL JOLLEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
A134019 (Marin County Super. Ct. No. CIV1002039) |
Plaintiff Scott Call Jolley and Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) entered into a construction loan agreement in 2006, which eventually encountered problems due to alleged failures by WaMu to properly disburse construction funds. As Jolley was continuing to attempt to salvage the transaction, WaMu went into receivership with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and in September 2008 JP Morgan Chase1 (Chase) bought WaMu‘s assets through a purchase and assumption agreement (Agreement or P&A Agreement). Jolley soon stopped making payments on the loan, and in late 2009 Chase took steps to foreclose.
Two days before the scheduled foreclosure sale, Jolley sued Chase and California Reconveyance Company (CRC), the trustee, alleging eight causes of action, including misrepresentation, breach of contract, and negligence. Defendants jointly moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, Chase‘s position based in large part on the theory that under the P&A Agreement Chase had not assumed the liabilities of WaMu. The Agreement was put before the court only in a request for judicial notice, which Agreement, an expert witness for Jolley declared, was not complete. Without addressing the expert‘s testimony, the trial court granted the request for judicial notice and, rejecting all of Jolley‘s arguments, granted summary judgment for both defendants.
Jolley appeals, arguing that there are triable issues of material fact relating to the financing debacle, not just limited to the claimed inauthenticity of the Agreement but also as to misconduct by Chase itself. We agree, and we reverse the summary judgment for Chase, concluding that six causes of action must proceed against it, all but the causes of action for declaratory relief and accounting. We affirm the summary judgment for CRC.