Tag: fraudulent

Texas Homeowner Survives Motion to Dismiss Against Bank of America

Texas Homeowner Survives Motion to Dismiss Against Bank of America

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thanks to Deontos for this ruling.  Homeowners in Texas survive motion to dismiss in Swim vs. Bank of America et. al.

Excerpt 1:

Defendants represented to Plaintiffs that they would not foreclose during the loan modification process—but they did. Therefore, since Defendants foreclosed during the loan modification process without contacting Plaintiffs to inform them that their trial modification had been rejected, Plaintiffs state a claim for breach of contract.

Excerpt 2: 

Section 392.304(a)(19) prohibits a debt collector, in debt collection or obtaining information concerning a consumer, from using a fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading representation or deceptive means to collect a debt or obtain information concerning a consumer. Plaintiffs allege BOA representatives informed Plaintiffs they had provided the required documents and that it would not foreclose during the loan modification process, that BOA and/or BAC repeatedly required documents Plaintiffs already provided, and that BAC foreclosed on the Property during the loan modification process, despite representations that it would not, because Plaintiffs allegedly did not provide documents Plaintiffs claim they provided. The Court finds that such facts state a claim under TDCPA § 392.304(a)(19), and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss this claim under that section of the TDCPA is thus DENIED. Continue reading “Texas Homeowner Survives Motion to Dismiss Against Bank of America”

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”

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”

The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 1

The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 1

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)

Monterey S.P. Partnership v. W. L. Bangham, Inc. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 454 , 261 Cal.Rptr. 587; 777 P.2d 623

Here is a quick overview of what happens in a non-judicial foreclosure.  If you are in a judicial state, this post does not apply directly to your case.  But if you understand what happens in a non-judicial foreclosure, you may get insight into what might apply to your case.

I am not indicating that any of these documents are true or accurate, just that this is what typically happens.

Closing the Transaction

The homeowner executes a note and security instrument (i.e. Deed of Trust).  The parties to the trust created by the Deed of Trust are the trustor (homeowner), trustee (usually a title company) and the beneficiary (either MERS or the named lender).    Everyone seems to assume that the trust was constituted (created), that it is valid and continuing.  This is where the trouble begins (not really, but for this article we will assume it begins here and not before).

Notice of Default

Supposedly the Notice of Default is recorded and sent to the homeowner by the agent for the beneficiary.  Who is the beneficiary?  Looking at my notice of default the only beneficiary mentioned is MERS.  However, other documents sent usually point to one or more other parties who “might” be a beneficiary.

Continue reading “The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 1”

NEW GRANDMA IN CALIFORNIA DOES SLEUTHING AND DISCOVERS MAJOR ROBO NOTARY VIOLATIONS

NEW GRANDMA IN CALIFORNIA DOES SLEUTHING AND DISCOVERS MAJOR ROBO NOTARY VIOLATIONS WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR HOMEOWNER-BORROWERS, INVESTORS AND MAJOR BANKING & INVESTMENT FIRMS.  IS THERE IRS TAX EVASION ON THE PART OF BANKS & INVESTMENT FIRMS?

By Anita Carr
©carra2011

Anita Carr is used to discovering fraudulent activities, even when she is not employed.  In 2001 she discovered accounting irregularities at a Fortune 500 where she was a Director in Information Technology.  This led to investor lawsuits against that company for accounting fraud and insider trading.  At a prior employer she contacted the FBI and worked with them to ensure they investigated Medicare Fraud.  The CFO of that company went to prison.

Now, in fighting to determine title on her home, she has discovered something even more slimy and with much broader implications.  In an attempt to validate a ‘squiggle’ type mark on a recorded document with the Alameda County Recorder’s office, Ms. Carr felt it imperative that she obtain a copy of the page from the notarial journal from the California notary who performed the notarization of the ‘Corporation Deed of Assignment’ related to her property.

Ms. Carr, under California laws, is entitled to purchase a copy of the page in the notarial journal related to her property and so she wrote to the Orange County Recorder’s office and sent a check to cover the copy fees.  Orange County is where the notary was registered.  Within weeks she received a certified letter back from the Orange County recorder stating that they should have the notarial journal, but they did not have it.  See, once a notary is no longer a notary in California, it is the law that they must turn in their notarial journal to the county recorder.

Continue reading “NEW GRANDMA IN CALIFORNIA DOES SLEUTHING AND DISCOVERS MAJOR ROBO NOTARY VIOLATIONS”

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”