Tag: Daniel Edstrom

Oregon Case Survives BAC Home Loan Servicing Motion to Dismiss

Oregon Case Survives BAC Home Loan Servicing Motion to Dismiss

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thanks to Charles Cox for finding this one.  This is amazing in and of itself since my information indicates that BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP ceased to exist on 7/1/2011.

Excerpt 1:

Second, Defendants argue that the loan modification agreement is subject to the statute of frauds and Plaintiff failed to plead that the loan modification agreement was subscribed by BAC. Under Oregon’s statute of frauds, an “agreement is void unless it… is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged[.]” Or. Rev. Stat. § 41.580(1). Partial performance may, however, take a contract out of the statute of frauds. Strong v. Hall, 253 Or. 61, 70 (1969);Royer v. Gailey, 252 Or. 369, 373 (1969). Plaintiff’s allegation that BAC accepted partial payments as described under the loan modification agreement for five months is sufficient pleading at this stage to survive Defendants’ argument that the agreement failed to satisfy the statute of frauds. Continue reading “Oregon Case Survives BAC Home Loan Servicing Motion to Dismiss”

Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Against Deutsche On Two Different Cases – On the Same Day

Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Against Deutsche On Two Different Cases – On the Same Day

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

From 4closurefraud.org – Attorney Phillip Taylor takes the foreclosure fight in Oklahoma to the Oklahoma Supreme Court and gets handed two favorable rulings on the same day.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company vs. Byram quote:

CONCLUSION

¶11 It is a fundamental precept of the law to expect a foreclosing party to actually be in possession of its claimed interest in the note, and have the proper supporting documentation in hand when filing suit, showing the history of the note, so that the defendant is duly apprised of the rights of the plaintiff. This is accomplished by showing the party is a holder of the instrument or a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to 12A O.S. 2001, § 3-309 or 12A O.S. 2001, § 3-418. Likewise, for the homeowners, absent adjudication on the underlying indebtedness, the dismissal cannot cancel their obligation arising from an authenticated note, or insulate them from foreclosure proceedings based on proven delinquency. See, U.S. Bank National Association v. Kimball 27 A.3d 1087, 75 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 100, 2011 VT 81 (VT 2011); and Indymac Bank, F.S.B. v. Yano-Horoski, 78 A.D.3d 895, 912 N.Y.S.2d 239 (2010).

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS Continue reading “Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Against Deutsche On Two Different Cases – On the Same Day”

Southern Essex Registry of Deeds Robo-Signers List

Southern Essex Registry of Deeds Robo-Signers List

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The Massachusetts Southern Essex Registry of Deeds provides a list of the robo-signers identified by McDonnell Property Analytics.  The list of robo-signers is as follows:

Last First

ADAMS MURIEL
AGUILAR GREENE ANGELA
ALAGIC SANELA
ALFONSO LUISA
AL-HAMMADI WENDY ALBERTSON
ALLEN CHRISTINA
ALLEN GREG
ALLOTEY LIQUENDA
ALTMAN ROBERT
AMICO CHRISTOPHER
ANDERSON CHRISTINE
ANDERSON EARITHA
ANDERSON SCOTT
ANTONELLI ANITA
ARIAS LETICIA
BACHMAN MICALL
BACKUS DEBORAH
BAGGS LORAINE
BAGLEY BRENT
BAILEY DENISE
BAILEY KIRSTEN
BAILEY-SLYH MARTHA
BALARA LORRIANE
BALDWIN CHRISTIE
BALDWIN LISA
BANASZEWSKI MATTHEW
BARRAZA ASHLEY
BARTOW HAL
BELL LANCE
BENIO DONNA
BENIO JENNIFER
BERZ PAULA
BESE TERESA
BISCHOF MARK
BISHOP MARK
BLACKSTUN NATE
BLECHINGER TONYA
BLY BRYAN
BOLDUC LORI
BORDER TIFFANY
BRIGNAC DABORAH Continue reading “Southern Essex Registry of Deeds Robo-Signers List”

Deeds of Trust in California are Practically and Substantially only Mortgages with a Power of Sale

Deeds of Trust in California are Practically and Substantially only Mortgages with a Power of Sale

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thanks to Simonee for this one – Monterey SP Partnership v. WL Bangham, Inc., 777 P. 2d 623 – Cal: Supreme Court 1989

The California Supreme Court states:

As we explained in describing “the anomalous nature of deeds of trust in this state” (Bank of Italy etc. Assn. v. Bentley (1933) 217 Cal. 644, 657 [20 P.2d 940]), “deeds of trust, except for the passage of title for the purpose of the trust, are practically and substantially only mortgages with a power of sale….” (Ibid.) In practical effect, if not in legal parlance, a deed of trust is a lien on the property.

And a few other tidbits:

“Just as a panda is not a true bear, a trustee of a deed of trust is not a true trustee.” (Stephens, Partain & Cunningham v. Hollis (1987) 196 Cal. App.3d 948, 955 [242 Cal. Rptr. 251].)

Download opinion here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Monterey_SP_Partnership_vs_WL_Bangham.pdf

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Deciding Hundreds of Years of Real Property Law Regarding MERS

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Deciding Hundreds of Years of Real Property Law Regarding MERS

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

In Eaton vs. FNMA, the Supreme Judicial Court is asking for additional briefings to help with the following “issue”:

1/16/2012 #17

ORDER :Having heard oral argument and considered the written submissions of the parties and the various amici curiae, the court hereby invites supplemental briefing on the points described below. Supplemental briefs shall not exceed fifteen pages and shall be filed on or before January 23, 2012. 1. It has been claimed that requiring a unity of the mortgage and the underlying promissory note, in order for there to be a valid foreclosure, would cloud any title that has a foreclosure in the chain of title, regardless of how long ago the foreclosure occurred. The parties are invited to address whether they believe that such a requirement would have such an effect, and if so, what legal or practical measures exist that might limit the consequences of such a requirement. 2. It also has been suggested that, if the court were to hold that unity of the mortgage and note is required under existing law, the court’s holding should be applied prospectively only. The parties are invited to indicate on what authority they believe (or do not believe) the court could make such a holding prospective only.

Securitized Total Consumer Loans Chart from the St. Louis Federal Reserve

Securitized Total Consumer Loans Chart from the St. Louis Federal Reserve

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The tsunami wave that will be felt for  the next 30 years minimum.   Securitization rose dramatically and has fallen even more dramatically.

From: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TOTALSEC

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

Edstrom_MortgageSecuritization_POSTER_17_x_22_v4_1California 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”

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”