Tag: creditor

The OCC Misses the Point on Toxic Waste

The OCC Misses the Point on Toxic Waste

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
http://www.dtc-systems.net

We all see what we want to see.  But when others control the conversation, it is easy to miss the point.  As a regulator the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency should be taking the lead and controlling the conversation, but in reality, they have been bridled and are being led around by the nose.  Conspiciously absent are numerous issues they as a regulator have the responsibility of dealing with.  This article is timely in response to an article by Neil F. Garfield (http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/the-big-lie-banks-did-nothing-illegal/), which is a response to Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism article (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/more-msm-criticism-of-obama-nothing-illegal-here-move-along-stance-on-foreclosure-fraud.html), which is a response to a Reuters article (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/22/us-foreclosures-idUSTRE7BL0MC20111222).  But I found none of these articles until I was finished writing this post.  Take the following random and critical issues:

  • Are the loans in the pool?  Were the loans ever in the pool?  Does the pool exist?  Did the pool perfect interest in any of the loans?  This issue is very political and the OCC in our opinion will never address this issue or look into this.
  • What loans are in default?  Can a loan be in default?  What comes first, the default or the loss?
  • Are there any compliance issues?

Continue reading “The OCC Misses the Point on Toxic Waste”

Foreclosure Mills Continue Down the Wide Path of Destruction

Foreclosure Mills Continue Down the Wide Path of Destruction

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

We have already talked about the foreclosure mills the Law Offices of David J. Stern PA and Ben-Ezra & Katz PA and NDEx West (owned by Dolan Media) with its doppelgänger foreclosure mill law firm, Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engle.  Now we turn our attention to Shapiro & Burson apparently out of Maryland.  As stated on livinglies.wordpress.com (and originally from 4closurefraud.org), The Baltimore Sun’s Jamie Smith Hopkins reports that 1,000 or more Maryland deeds are likely forgeries that were created by a foreclosure mill (the law firm of Shapiro & Burson).  It turns out that last year two other law firms in Maryland admitted they had forged signatures on foreclosure documents in a similar manner (Bierman Geesing & Ward along with Covahey Boozer Devan and Dore).  I have already shown that NDEx West (owned by Dolan Media) along with Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engle does the same thing.  This is very easy to show for just about any foreclosure mill.  Here is how.  Just go down to the recorders office and pull up 20 documents in each of the last 3 or 4 years naming your favorite foreclosure mill (NDEx West or whoever).  The chances of you not finding one forgery are probably close to 0%.  The chances of you finding multiple forgeries is very high (99%+). Continue reading “Foreclosure Mills Continue Down the Wide Path of Destruction”

The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 2

The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 2

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

New Note added on 1/22/2012 thanks to Simonee.  California Probate Code does not seem to apply based on this California Supreme Court decision: Monterey S.P. Partnership v. W. L. Bangham, Inc. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 454 , 261 Cal.Rptr. 587; 777 P.2d 623 (download here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Monterey_SP_Partnership_vs_WL_Bangham.pdf)

This is a continuation from The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 1 (http://dtc-systems.net/2011/01/wrong-remedy-wrong-time-part-1/).

It turns out that if you want to modify the Trust created by your Deed of Trust, or if you want to determine if the trust exists, you need to petition the court under California Probate Code 17200.  If you are not in California, but are in a Deed of Trust state, your state probably has similar probate laws.

In order to petition the court, California Probate Code 17200 has the following provision:

“(a) Except as provided in Section 15800, a trustee or beneficiary of a trust may petition the court under this chapter concerning the internal affairs of the trust or to determine the existence of the trust.”

Right off the bat we find that only a trustee or a beneficiary has the ability to petition the court under 17200.  If no trustee is specified, the default trustee is the trustor (the parties that executed the note – i.e. the homeowners).  The beneficiaries can easily substitute in a new trustee if that occurs.  But what if Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) is named as the beneficiary?  Consider California Mortgage and Deed of Trust Practice § 1.39 (3d ed Cal CEB 2008) § 1.39 (1) the Beneficiary Must Be Obligee:  The beneficiary must be an obligee of the secured obligation (usually the payee of a note), because otherwise the deed of trust in its favor is meaningless. Watkins v Bryant (1891) 91 C 492, 27 P 775; Nagle v Macy (1858) 9 C 426. See §§ 1.8-1.19 on the need for an obligation. The deed of trust is merely an incident of the obligation and has no existence apart from it. Goodfellow v Goodfellow (1933) 219 C 548, 27 P2d 898; Adler v Sargent (1895) 109 C 42, 41 P 799; Turner v Gosden (1932) 121 CA 20, 8 P2d 505. The holder of the note, however, can enforce the deed of trust whether or not named as beneficiary or mortgagee. CC § 2936; see § 1.23.

Continue reading “The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 2”