Glaski vs Bank of America NA et al – FOR PUBLICATION

Glaski vs Bank of America NA et al – FOR PUBLICATION

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

On August 8, 2013 the Fifth Appellate District in the Court of Appeal of the State of California ordered the Thomas A. Glaski vs Bank of America, NA et al decision published, stating:

As the nonpublished opinion filed on July 31, 2013, in the above entitled matter hereby meets the standards for publication specified in the California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c), it is ordered that the opinion be certified for publication in the Official Reports.

Based on the importance of this case, the text of the July 31, 2013 ruling is listed verbatim:

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THOMAS A. GLASKI,Plaintiff and Appellant,v.

BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION et al.

Defendants and Respondents.

F064556

(Super. Ct. No. 09CECG03601)

OPINION

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Alan M. Simpson, Judge.

Law Offices of Richard L. Antognini and Richard L. Antognini; Law Offices of Catarina M. Benitez and Catarina M. Benitez, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

AlvaradoSmith, Theodore E. Bacon, and Mikel A. Glavinovich, for Defendants and Respondents.

-ooOoo-

INTRODUCTION

Before Washington Mutual Bank, FA (WaMu) was seized by federal banking regulators in 2008, it made many residential real estate loans and used those loans as collateral for mortgage-backed securities.[1] Many of the loans went into default, which led to nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings. Some of the foreclosures generated lawsuits, which raised a wide variety of claims. The allegations that the instant case shares with some of the other lawsuits are that (1) documents related to the foreclosure contained forged signatures of Deborah Brignac and (2) the foreclosing entity was not the true owner of the loan because its chain of ownership had been broken by a defective transfer of the loan to the securitized trust established for the mortgage-backed securities. Here, the specific defect alleged is that the attempted transfers were made after the closing date of the securitized trust holding the pooled mortgages and therefore the transfers were ineffective.

In this appeal, the borrower contends the trial court erred by sustaining defendants’ demurrer as to all of his causes of action attacking the nonjudicial foreclosure. We conclude that, although the borrower’s allegations are somewhat confusing and may contain contradictions, he nonetheless has stated a wrongful foreclosure claim under the lenient standards applied to demurrers. We conclude that a borrower may challenge the securitized trust’s chain of ownership by alleging the attempts to transfer the deed of trust to the securitized trust (which was formed under New York law) occurred after the trust’s closing date. Transfers that violate the terms of the trust instrument are void under New York trust law, and borrowers have standing to challenge void assignments of their loans even though they are not a party to, or a third party beneficiary of, the assignment agreement.

We therefore reverse the judgment of dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

Continue reading “Glaski vs Bank of America NA et al – FOR PUBLICATION”

All Causes of Action Survive Motion to Dismiss in California Federal Case Against Bank of America

All Causes of Action Survive Motion to Dismiss in California Federal Case Against Bank of America

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thanks to Brian Davies for this one. Prosper Law Group’s complaint in Johnson vs. HSBC Bank USA, NA as Trustee for the Ellington Trust Series 2007-1, Bank of America, NA and does 1 – 10 inclusive contains 7 causes of action. The conclusion and order from Federal Judge Jeffrey T. Miller is:

For the reasons stated above, the motion to dismiss is DENIED. Defendants’ motion has failed to demonstrate that Plaintiff’s claims were implausible or precluded as a matter of law.

The following is an excerpt, but the rest is great reading also.

Excerpt

A. Viability of Attack on Loan Securitization
1. Ability to Challenge Loan Securitization
The threshold issue of whether Plaintiff can make any claim related to the loan’s securitization affects the viability of many of the individual claims discussed below. BOA cites Rodenhurst v. Bank of America, 773 F.Supp.2d 886, 899 (D. Haw. 2011) for its statement that “[t]he overwhelming authority does not support a cause of action based upon improper securitization.” However, the discussion cited in that case centers on plaintiffs who claim that securitization itself violates the agreement between the mortgagor and mortgagee. Here, Plaintiff does not dispute the right to securitize the mortgage, but alleges that as a result of improper procedures, the true owner of his mortgage is unclear. As a result, he has allegedly been paying improper entities an excess amount. Continue reading “All Causes of Action Survive Motion to Dismiss in California Federal Case Against Bank of America”

Lona vs Citibank: Decision from Court of Appeals of California

Lona vs Citibank: Decision from Court of Appeals of California

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

Here is this summary judgment reversal from an original ruling against a homeowner. Download the PDF at the end.

LONA v. CITIBANK, N.A.

JONAS Z. LONA, Plaintiff and Appellant,

CITIBANK, N.A., as Trustee, etc. et al., Defendants and Respondents.

No. H036140.

Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District.

Filed December 21, 2011.

Law Office of Adlore V. Clarambeau, Adlore V. Clarambeau, Attorneys for Appellant Jonas Z. Lona.

Alvarado Smith, John M. Sorich, S. Christopher Yoo, Geoffrey C. Brethen, Attorneys for Respondent Citibank, N.A.

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

WALSH, J.^*

Responding to a mortgage broker’s “marketing enticement,” a homeowner agreed in January 2007 to refinance his home for $1.5 million. With a monthly income of only $3,333, the homeowner quickly fell behind in his monthly payments of $12,381.36. In August 2008, the home was sold at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale. The homeowner filed an action against the lender, the loan servicer, and others to set aside the trustee’s sale claiming that he was a victim of predatory lending. He claimed the transaction was invalid because the loan broker ignored his inability to repay the loan, and, as a person with limited English fluency, little education, and modest income, he did not understand many of the details of the transaction which was conducted entirely in English.

In response to the homeowner’s claim, the lender and the loan servicer moved for summary judgment, arguing: that the homeowner had failed to tender the amounts due on the loans, which was required to set aside the sale; that none of the exceptions to the tender requirement applied; and that the homeowner voluntarily entered into the loan agreements and was personally responsible for the loss of his home. The trial court granted summary judgment to the lender and loan servicer.

We will reverse the summary judgment. In doing so, we define the elements of an equitable cause of action to set aside a foreclosure sale and exceptions to the requirement that the borrower tender any amounts due under the loan. We hold that summary judgment was improper because: the homeowner presented sufficient evidence of triable issues of material fact with regard to the alleged unconscionability of the transaction; and the motion did not address a pertinent exception to the tender requirement, which the homeowner had raised in his complaint. Continue reading “Lona vs Citibank: Decision from Court of Appeals of California”

Interagency Independent Foreclosure Review – File Your CLAIM

Interagency Independent Foreclosure Review – File Your CLAIM

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The following regarding the numerous Cease and Desist Consent Orders issued against servicers and others for unsafe or unsound foreclosure policies and practices is available here: http://www.independentforeclosurereview.com/

Independent Foreclosure Review

Looking for information about the Independent Foreclosure Review? Si usted habla español, tenemos representantes que pueden asistirle en su idioma.

Homeowners whose primary residence was part of a foreclosure action between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010, and whose home loan was serviced by a participating servicer, may be eligible for an Independent Foreclosure Review.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (federal bank regulators) have required an Independent Foreclosure Review by an independent consultant to identify eligible customers who may have been financially injured due to errors, misrepresentations or other deficiencies in their foreclosure process. If the review finds that financial injury occurred, the customer may receive compensation or other remedy.

To qualify, your mortgage loan would need to meet the initial eligibility criteria: Continue reading “Interagency Independent Foreclosure Review – File Your CLAIM”

MERS has no agency – New York Bankruptcy Court: in re Agard

The following is a New York Bankruptcy motion for relief from stay ruling from February 10th, 2011

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

—————————————————————–x

In re:

Case No. 810-77338-reg

FERREL L. AGARD,

Chapter 7

Debtor.

—————————————————————–x

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Before the Court is a motion (the “Motion”) seeking relief from the automatic stay

pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2), to foreclose on a secured interest in the Debtor’s real

property located in Westbury, New York (the “Property”). The movant is Select Portfolio

Servicing, Inc. (“Select Portfolio” or “Movant”), as servicer for U.S. Bank National Association,

as Trustee for First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-FF12, Mortgage Pass-Through

Certificates, Series 2006-FF12 (“U.S. Bank”). The Debtor filed limited opposition to the Motion

contesting the Movant’s standing to seek relief from stay. The Debtor argues that the only

interest U.S. Bank holds in the underlying mortgage was received by way of an assignment from

the Mortgage Electronic Registration System a/k/a MERS, as a “nominee” for the original

lender. The Debtor’s argument raises a fundamental question as to whether MERS had the legal

authority to assign a valid and enforceable interest in the subject mortgage. Because U.S. Bank’s

rights can be no greater than the rights as transferred by its assignor – MERS – the Debtor argues

that the Movant, acting on behalf of U.S. Bank, has failed to establish that it holds an

enforceable right against the Property.1 The Movant’s initial response to the Debtor’s opposition was that

MERS’s authority to assign the mortgage to U.S. Bank is derived from the mortgage itself which

allegedly grants to MERS its status as both “nominee” of the mortgagee and “mortgagee of

record.” The Movant later supplemented its papers taking the position that U.S. Bank is a

creditor with standing to seek relief from stay by virtue of a judgment of foreclosure and sale

entered in its favor by the state court prior to the filing of the bankruptcy. The Movant argues

that the judgment of foreclosure is a final adjudication as to U.S. Bank’s status as a secured

creditor and therefore the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits this Court from looking behind the

judgment and questioning whether U.S. Bank has proper standing before this Court by virtue of a

valid assignment of the mortgage from MERS.
Continue reading “MERS has no agency – New York Bankruptcy Court: in re Agard”

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”