DTC-Systems – Page 11 – DTC Systems Inc

IN RE WACHOVIA PREFERRED SECURITIES AND BOND/NOTES LITIGATION

IN RE WACHOVIA PREFERRED SECURITIES AND BOND/NOTES LITIGATION

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

This case discusses the “pick-a-pay” loans, CDO’s and RMBS from World Savings Bank and Wachovia. Note that in paragraph 3 on page 8 Wachovia reported:

$120 billion portfolio of option adjustable rate mortgages (“Option ARMs”), known as the “Pick-A-Pay” portfolio, which Wachovia acquired through its May 2006 purchase of Golden West;

By my calculations, the original principal balance of World Savings REMICs that contain “Option ARMs” was $124.9 billion dollars. What a coincidence.

View this case here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/in-RE-Wachovia-Preferred-Securities-and-Bond-Notes-Litigation.pdf

The Los Angeles Times discusses a new settlement agreement: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/08/wells-fargo-kpmg-reach-627-million-settlement-of-lending-lawsuit.html

Wells Fargo Bank 10-Q from quarterly period ended June 30, 2011: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/72971/000095012311073266/f59207e10vq.htm

Notice Must Provide the Name and Address of the Lender

Notice Must Provide the Name and Address of the Lender

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thanks to StopForeclosureFraud.com for this gem (http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2011/08/09/bank-of-new-york-vs-laks-nj-appeals-court-reversal-a-notice-of-intention-is-deficient-if-it-does-not-provide-the-name-and-address-of-the-lender/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+ForeclosureFraudByDinsfla+(FORECLOSURE+FRAUD+|+by+DinSFLA))

The Notice of Intention did not contain the name and address of the lender so the New Jersey appeals court reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting relief (the motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and dismiss the complaint without prejudice).

View this case here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/BONY-v-LAKS_Lender_Must_Provide_The_Name_and_Address_of_Lender.pdf

Title Crisis – Part II – The Documents used to Foreclose are Fraudulent

Title Crisis – Part II – The Documents used to Foreclose are Fraudulent

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The following was just posted on Neil Garfield’s blog, livinglies.wordpress.com. It is reposted here with the following comments. These are fabricated documents placed into the title record at the county recorders. In non-judicial states these documents do not need to be recorded to foreclose as those foreclosing can instead file a judicial foreclosure and prove their claim. Because they have no claim and cannot prove it, they knowingly, willingly and without any regard for the consequences, choose to corrupt the land title records instead. To read about this choice, read the Hooker vs. BofA ruling from a Federal District Court judge out of Oregon: Hooker-v-BofA_and_MERS – Congratulations to Oregon Attorney James Stout for his work on this case.

From Neil Garfield and Lynn Szymoniak (see Lynn Szymoniak in action on 60 Minutes here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20049744-10391709.html)

EDITOR’S NOTE (Neil Garfield): We know the foreclosures were gross misrepresentations of fact to the Courts, to the Borrowers and to the Investors. This article shows the crossover between the MegaBanks — sharing and diluting the responsibility for these fabrications as they went along. If you are talking about one big bank you are talking about all the megabanks. Continue reading “Title Crisis – Part II – The Documents used to Foreclose are Fraudulent”

Title Crisis

Title Crisis

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

If you thought this was a foreclosure crisis brought about by the Mortgage Meltdown, you would be wrong. If this were a foreclosure crisis only those in foreclosure would be the ones having problems. And only those loans in foreclosure would be the ones having title issues and “robo-signer” issues. I cannot say this loud enough: FORECLOSURE IS NOT THE PROBLEM. Homeowners not making payments is not the problem. “Freeing up” credit to stimulate lending is not the problem. If you didn’t get a subprime loan, and yours is a 30 year fixed, you are at risk of a clouded title almost as much as anyone in foreclosure. In fact, if you have refinanced or purchased your house from 2000 or later, you could easily have a defect in title. Since I am not a lawyer and can only give myself legal advice, I will only discuss my own case. And of course these are only my opinions based on my knowledge, education, training and research. Apparently my title company thinks my title is good. I know because somebody asked them and they said it was good. At the end of the article I will explain why they would say that. What they meant to say was “Everything is great because we, as a title company, are not at risk at all based on our review of your title”. Continue reading “Title Crisis”

FTC Consent Judgment and Order against BAC Home Loans Servicing

FTC Consent Judgment and Order against BAC Home Loans Servicing

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Am I the only one who missed this Consent Judgment and Order against BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (hereinafter “BAC”) and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (hereinafter “Countrywide”) from the Federal Trade Commission? They seem to have put quite a damper in what they can and cannot do. Has BAC complied with the following since this order dated June 15, 2010:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within one-hundred fifty (150) days from the date of entry of this Order, Defendants, their officers, employees, agents, representatives, and all other Persons or entities in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division, or other device, are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined, in connection with the Servicing of any Loan, from failing to disclose Clearly and Prominently the following information: Continue reading “FTC Consent Judgment and Order against BAC Home Loans Servicing”

Pro Per Debtor Stops Attorneys for US Bank – in RE Deamicis

Pro Per Debtor Stops Attorneys for US Bank – in RE Deamicis

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

She has been fighting toothe and nail. Nobody was listening. The current bankruptcy judge was skeptical when she showed up in bankruptcy. But now his ruling on a motion for relief from stay blows the doors off her case. It seems that bank attorneys are confused by something that should be very simple for an attorney. The issue is who is the real party in interest? Many have failed to comprehend what is in a name. If a very large bank is included in the name, most just glaze over it and go right to the pleadings. Here it is in a nutshell: US Bank, NA as Indenture Trustee is MEANINGLESS. This is because when a trust is involved, the trust is the real party, not the bank. US Bank is a trustee of hundreds if not thousands of trusts. Naming them as Trustee does not identify an entity that is real. In the debtors case, the bank foreclosed on her home in the name of US Bank as Indenture Trustee of [some Terwin Trust]. This was a non-judicial foreclosure. In the UD (unlawful detainer), which is a judicial case to evict her, the name used was US Bank as Indenture Trustee. The lawyers did not specify a specific trust. She lost that case in state court and before she was evicted she filed bankruptcy. She had to keep objecting and protesting. Eventually the judge came to the realization that something was wrong. In fact the judge ruled as follows:

“The defect cannot be cured, either directly or implicitly, by any ruling this court can make on behalf of the Terwin Trust in the Second 362 Motion.”

I almost fell out of my chair when I read that. If they put the wrong name, they have to cure the problem. Based on my research, in a very large number of cases the wrong party is named. Including yours truly. Have a nice day, I know I will.

Download the case here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/in-RE-Deamicis-Real-Party-in-Interest-For-Publication.pdf

Consolidated Listing of All Cease and Desist Consent Orders Issued on April 13, 2011

Consolidated Listing of All Cease and Desist Consent Orders Issued on April 13, 2011

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Due to the volume of requests, here is a listing of all known Cease and Desist Consent Orders issued in April 2011 in regards to the Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices.

Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices

Cease and Desist Consent Orders	Department of Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency	OTS	Board of Governers for the Federal Reserve System	FDIC	FHFA
Bank of America	x
Citibank	x
HSBC	x
JPMorgan Chase Bank	x
US Bank	x
PNC Bank	x
MetLife Bank	x
Wells Fargo Bank	x
Aurora Bank		x
EverBank		x
EverBank Financial Corp		x
IMB HoldCo LLC		x
OneWest Bank		x
Sovereign Bank		x
MERSCORP and MERS	x	x	x	x	x
LPS Default and DocX	x	x	x	x
SunTrust			x
Ally Bank / Ally Financial / Residential Capital / GMAC Mortgage			x	x

Who to Contact Regarding Mortgage Fraud

Who to Contact Regarding Mortgage Fraud

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The following is a press release issued by the Department of Justice FBI’s Sacramento Office. It represents a fairly comprehensive list of who is going after mortgage fraud. While this press release covers the Sacramento and Fresno areas of California, it is highly likely there is a similar task force in your area.

Department of Justice Press Release


For Immediate Release June 16, 2011	United States Attorney’s Office Eastern District of California Contact: (916) 554-2700 (916) 554-2700
U.S. Attorney Announces Results of Mortgage Fraud Prosecutions in 12 Months Since Operation Stolen Dreams Continue reading “Who to Contact Regarding Mortgage Fraud”

Hundreds of Years of Title Destroyed in a Decade and a Half

Hundreds of Years of Title Destroyed in a Decade and a Half

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Neil F. Garfield, Esq. just posted the following article:

TITLE CRISIS: EVEN IF YOU PAID CASH FOR YOUR HOME, TITLE STILL IN DOUBT — and you could be “underwater”

Posted on June 18, 2011 by Neil Garfield

What nearly everyone is missing is that any property that was mortgaged at any point in the last 15 years may have serious title defects. Here is the scenario:

A house is purchased or refinanced with a mortgage
At some point in the future the house is refinanced again or sold
A title company sends a payoff amount to “an entity”
“An entity” issues either a substitution of trustee and full reconveyance or a full reconveyance (or other type of document used to release the loan)
Repeat ad nauseum (or this only happened one time) Continue reading “Hundreds of Years of Title Destroyed in a Decade and a Half”

What did the Attorneys for OneWest Learn at Trial?

What did the Attorneys for OneWest Learn at Trial?

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

From the United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District of California Bankruptcy No. 09-19263-PB13 (RS No. CNR-2), the Honorable Laura S. Taylor presiding (Not for Publication). OneWest submitted a motion for relief from stay as a secured creditor. This means they are the one with money at risk and there is security for the collateral (a Deed of Trust securing the debtors home). Attorneys had submitted this information and much more on behalf of OneWest. OneWest used a Brian Burnett to provide a declaration stating under penalty of perjury that OneWest was the real party in interest in connection with the Stay Motion. Mr. Burnett also stated under penalty of perjury that: (a) OneWest received an interest in the Trust Deed pursuant to an assignment attached to the OneWest Declaration; and (b) that OneWest is “holder and in actual physical possession of the original Promissory Note dated July 14, 2007 …”. A copy of the note (unendorsed) was attached to the declaration. This note was identical to the note attached to the Claim (Proof of Claim).

At trial, Charles Boyle, an Assistant Vice President in the Default Risk Management Group, Litigation Department of OneWest, testified, among other things, that the beneficiary of the Loan is Freddie Mac. This testimony was not consistent with the OneWest Declaration (by Mr. Burnett). The court required more information after the trial in order to decide the outcome.

OneWest’s post-trial documents contained factual assertions inconsistent with the OneWest Declaration and claim. OneWest now provided a new copy of the note with an allonge dated July 24, 2007 evidencing a transfer from Original Lender to “IndyMc Bank, FSB” and bore an endorsement in blank from IndyMac Bank FSB. Continue reading “What did the Attorneys for OneWest Learn at Trial?”