Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

In RE Miller – Colorado Bankruptcy Appeal – Deutsche Failed to Conform to UCC Requirements

In RE Miller – Colorado Bankruptcy Appeal – Deutsche Failed to Conform to UCC Requirements

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thanks to Deontos for this bankruptcy appeals decision. In RE: Mark Stanley Miller vs. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) issues are addressed by the appeals court in this ruling.

Excerpt:

4. Deutsche Bank’s Status as “Party in Interest”

¶5 Deutsche Bank presented evidence that IndyMac had indorsed the Note in

blank. Is proof of this indorsement sufficient under the U.C.C. requirements to

establish Deutsche Bank as the successor holder of the note? As we shall see,

it is not, because Deutsche Bank must also prove it has possession of the

Note. Continue reading “In RE Miller – Colorado Bankruptcy Appeal – Deutsche Failed to Conform to UCC Requirements”

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”

Bankruptcy Judge Margaret M. Mann Strikes Down Deutsche

Bankruptcy Judge Margaret M. Mann Strikes Down Deutsche

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The Honorable Judge Mann in Southern California brings the MERS issue up hard against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.

Read the ruling – in re: Doble, Doble v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Doble-v-Deutsche-Bank.pdf

Cease & Desist Orders for: Citigroup, HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, MetLife, PNC, SunTrust, US Bancorp and Wells Fargo Bank

Cease & Desist Orders for: Citigroup, HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, MetLife, PNC, SunTrust, US Bancorp and Wells Fargo Bank

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The latest round of Cease and Desist orders issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) are against some of the largest “too big to fail” banks. Notably missing so far is Deutsche Bank National Trust Company along with Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas and of course OneWest Bank.

The gist of these Cease and Desist orders is that certain “deficiencies” were found and the banks are operating with “unsafe or unsound” practices in residential mortgage servicing and in the Bank’s initiation and handling of foreclosure proceedings.

We hail the OCC for these efforts, but the problem is following up. How are the banks going to immediately comply with this order? They would have to stop processing nearly every single foreclosure they are working on today.

Continue reading “Cease & Desist Orders for: Citigroup, HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, MetLife, PNC, SunTrust, US Bancorp and Wells Fargo Bank”

Realized Losses in Securitization

Realized Losses in Securitization

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

It is of interest to note that no loss is calculated in securitized transactions until the loan is liquidated. It is also of value to note that usually the principal and interest is advanced until the loan is liquidated (as I saw in a case where it was stated by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company in an answer to discovery). So principal and interest payments are made by the servicers and/or trustees, and no loss is actually realized until after the house is foreclosed upon and sold to a 3rd party. So what came first, the default or the loss? No default occurs until the loan is liquidated, which doesn’t occur until after the foreclosure sale. This means the homes are sold while the loans are current. I would venture to say that nearly ALL foreclosures in at least the last 10 years on homes with securitized transactions, have been fraudulent and invalid. This is because the paperwork used to foreclose is VOID. Not voidable, but VOID.

Take a look at these definitions from the Argent Securities Inc. 2003-W6 Trust:

State Principal Balance
As to any mortgage loan or manufactured housing contract, the principal balance of the mortgage loan or manufactured housing contract as of the cut-off date, after application of all scheduled principal payments due on or before the cut-off date, whether or not received, reduced by all amounts, including advances by the master servicer, allocable to principal that are distributed to securityholders on or before the date of determination, and as further reduced to the extent that any realized loss thereon has been, or had it not been covered by a form of credit support, would have been, allocated to one or more classes of securities on or before the determination date.

Advance
As to any Mortgage Loan or REO Property, any advance made by the Master Servicer or a successor Master Servicer in respect of any Distribution Date representing the aggregate of all payments of principal and interest, net of the Servicing Fee, that were due during the related Due Period on the Mortgage Loans and that were delinquent on the related Determination Date, plus certain amounts representing assumed payments not covered by any current net income on the Mortgaged Properties acquired by foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure as determined pursuant to Section 4.03.

Determination Date
With respect to each Distribution Date, the 10th day of the calendar month in which such Distribution Date occurs or, if such 10th day is not a Business Day, the Business Day immediately preceding such 10th day.

Continue reading “Realized Losses in Securitization”

World Savings Bank, A Living Legacy of the Subprime Crisis

World Savings Bank, A Living Legacy of the Subprime Crisis

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

World Savings Bank loans were the worst of the worst loans that were packaged up and sold to homeowners from the 1990’s until 2008. These loans consisted of pick a pay loans with negative amortization. Typical predatory negative amortization loans allow for the original loan balance to increase to 110% maximum. Meaning if the loan was originally issued at $100,000.00, the loan balance can keep going negative until it reaches $110,000.00. World Savings Bank decided that this wasn’t enough and allowed their negative amortization loans to reach 125% of the original principal balance. This is the gift that keeps on giving. As home values have been decimated by the meltdown and continue to drop, properties with World Savings Bank loans have principal balances that keep going up and up and up. No underwriting was given on these loans, the value of the properties and the promise and belief they would ever rise was the only consideration given to support the loan. The other consideration used in “lending” the money had nothing to do with the homeowners. World Savings Bank wanted to entice investors into parting with their money. Lots of money. In fact BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars. It turns out that World Savings Bank had NO STAKE in the transaction, they were only the middleman. One big fat rich middleman. This was at the expense of both borrowers and investors who purchased certificates from the many REMICs setup by World Savings Bank. What REMICs? What securitizations? Didn’t Wells Fargo tell you that these loans were securitized? Why does the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the OCC) allow Wells Fargo Bank to foreclose in their own name on the tens of thousands of World Savings Bank foreclosures? The OCC knows much more than the American people what World Savings Bank, Wachovia and Wells Fargo Bank are doing to the American homeowners. Namely that Wells Fargo Bank is walking into court claiming to be the real party in interest, claiming that they own these loans and that they were never securitized. Of course this is nothing new for Wells Fargo Bank or Wachovia. Just look at the auto loans securitized by Wachovia Dealer Services. Wachovia Dealer Services did not loan the money as these were table funded automobile loans. The money used to fund the automobile loans came from various trusts that pooled the loans and sold them to investors. The trusts and/or the investors allegedly own the loans and not Wachovia Dealer Services or Wells Fargo Bank. But you would never know this by going to just about any state court in this country and looking at who the plaintiff is thats filing a judicial lawsuit on these automobile loans: Wachovia Dealer Services. Reading the Prospectus for these deals is a real eye opener: Title will remain in the name of Wachovia Dealer Services and even though the loans are sold, the abstract of title given to the DMV will not be updated to reflect the correct ownership. They go on to admit that title has not been perfected and that the certificateholders are at risk. It even goes on to say that the loan contracts will not be updated to reflect that ownership has changed (endorsement under state UCC laws). So you have no endorsement and no transfer (no perfection). The beneficial and equitable rights have been sold. The above all describes predatory banking, lending and servicing at its worst.

Continue reading “World Savings Bank, A Living Legacy of the Subprime Crisis”