All Assignments of a Mortgage Must Be Recorded Before the Mortgagee Begins Foreclosure by Advertisement

All Assignments of a Mortgage Must Be Recorded Before the Mortgagee Begins Foreclosure by Advertisement

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The Minnesota Supreme Court issued a ruling requiring strict compliance with recording assignments prior to starting a foreclosure by advertisement.

Quote from the ruling:

Under Minn. Stat. § 580.02 (2012), all assignments of a mortgage must be recorded before the mortgagee begins the process of foreclosure by advertisement. Absent strict compliance with this requirement, a foreclosure by advertisement is void.
Affirmed.

Download the ruling here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Ruiz-vs-1st-Fidelity-Foreclosure-by-Advertisement-must-have-strict-compliance.pdf

Brandrup v. ReconTrust Co. – MERS Ruling in Oregon Part 1

Brandrup v. ReconTrust Co. – MERS Ruling in Oregon Part 1

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The Oregon Supreme Court was asked four questions, and answered as follows:

We accepted the district court’s certification and allowed the parties in the federal cases to
present their views. We answer those questions — in two instances as reframed — as
follows:

(1) “No.” For purposes of ORS 86.735(1), the “beneficiary” is the lender to whom the obligation that the trust deed secures is owed or the lender’s successor in interest. Thus, an entity like MERS, which is not a lender, may not be a trust deed’s “beneficiary,” unless it is a lender’s successor in interest.

(2) We reframe the second question as follows:
Is MERS eligible to serve as beneficiary under the Oregon Trust DeedAct where the trust deed provides that MERS “holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) has the right: to exercise any or all of those interests”?

Continue reading “Brandrup v. ReconTrust Co. – MERS Ruling in Oregon Part 1”

Texas Ropes One In: Motion to Dismiss Denied

Texas Ropes One In: Motion to Dismiss Denied

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

From April Charney:

…”If the holder of the deed of trust does not own or hold the note, the deed of trust serves no purpose, is impotent, and cannot be a vehicle for depriving the grantor of the deed of trust of ownership of the property described in the deed of trust….[finding that]…inherent in the procedural steps outlined in the Texas Property Code is the assumption that whatever entity qualifies as a “mortgagee” either owns the note or is serving as an agent for the owner or holder of the note; and, the statute assumes that when a foreclosure is conducted by someone other than the owner or holder of the note, the person conducting the foreclosure will be acting as agent or nominee for the owner or holder…Otherwise, the Texas statutory law would make no sense, and would be directly at odds with long-standing, basic principles governing the relationship between real estate borrowers, on the one hand, and their corresponding secured real estate lenders, on the other.” (edited from the below decision):

JANE McCARTHY, Plaintiff, vs. BANK OF AMERICA, NA, BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendants. NO. 4:11-CV-356-A December 22, 2011

Interesting California Civil Codes

Interesting California Civil Codes

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Those who haven’t read these should read through them for educational purposes.

California Civil Code Selections

1044

Property of any kind may be transferred, except as otherwise provided by this Article.

1045

A mere possibility, not coupled with an interest, cannot be transferred.

1046

A right of reentry, or of repossession for breach of condition subsequent, can be transferred.

1047

Any person claiming title to real property in the adverse possession of another may transfer it with the same effect as if in actual possession.

1054

A grant takes effect, so as to vest the interest intended to be transferred, only upon its delivery by the grantor.

1056

A grant cannot be delivered to the grantee conditionally. Delivery to him, or to his agent as such, is necessarily absolute, and the instrument takes effect thereupon, discharged of any condition on which the delivery was made.

1057

A grant may be deposited by the grantor with a third person, to be delivered on performance of a condition, and, on delivery by the depositary, it will take effect. While in the possession of the third person, and subject to condition, it is called an escrow. Continue reading "Interesting California Civil Codes"

US Bank is not the Note Holder – North Carolina: Bass vs. US Bank

US Bank is not the Note Holder – North Carolina: Bass vs. US Bank

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

This case is listed here without comment. The issues of endorsements, allonges, burden of proof, etc. are raised here and are very illuminating.

In the Matter of the foreclosure of a Deed of Trust executed by Tonya R. Bass in the original amount of $139,988.00 dated October 12, 2005, recorded in Book 4982, Page 86, Durham County Registry,
Substitute Trustee Services, Inc., as Substitute Trustee,

No. COA11-565.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2011.

K&L Gates, LLP, by A. Lee Hogewood III, and Brian C. Fork for Petitioner-appellant.

Legal Aid of North Carolina, Inc., by E. Maccene Brown, Gregory E. Pawlowski, John Christopher Lloyd, and Andre C. Brown, for Respondent-appellee.

ROBERT N. HUNTER, JR., Judge.

U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee, c/o Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Petitioner”) appeals the trial court’s order dismissing foreclosure proceedings against Respondent Tonya R. Bass. Petitioner assigns error to the trial court’s determination that Petitioner is not the legal holder of a promissory note executed by Respondent and therefore lacks authorization to foreclose on Respondent’s property securing the note under a deed of trust. After careful review, we affirm.

I. Factual & Procedural Background Continue reading “US Bank is not the Note Holder – North Carolina: Bass vs. US Bank”

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”