obligation – DTC Systems Inc

Failure to Allege Lack of Default

Failure to Allege Lack of Default

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

One of the main reasons many cases do not make it to daylight is because of the failure to allege lack of default. Despite many lawyers knowing that this is the case, and that there is no default, many still fail to make the allegation. On what basis can a lawyer allege lack of default for a homeowner facing foreclosure?

The Note and Security Instrument

The note is not the obligation but evidence of the obligation (for proof of this, in many cases the security instrument refers to the note as the evidence of the obligation). Lawyers usually describe the obligation arising when one party accepts money from another party. The note usually describes who the parties are that are obligated in the section titled OBLIGATIONS OF PERSONS UNDER THIS NOTE. This section of the note states:

If more than one person signs this Note, each person is fully and personally obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note, including the promise to pay the full amount owed. Any person who is a guarantor, surety or endorser of this Note is also obligated to do these things. Any person who takes over these obligations, including the obligations of a guarantor, surety or endorser of this note, is also obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note. The Note Holder may enforce its rights under this Note against each person individually or against all of us together. This means that any one of us may be required to pay all of the amounts owed under this Note.

Continue reading “Failure to Allege Lack of Default”

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”

You Know You Are Going To Lose When …

You Know You Are Going To Lose When …

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Posted by Neil F. Garfield on livinglies.wordpress.com on 3/31/2012 (http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/you-know-you-are-losing-when/). Study this until you have it committed items 1 through 10 to memory.

Taking a line from Jeff Foxworthy, I have compiled the following guidelines of how to know when you are going to lose against the thieving bank seeking to steal your property. You might call it, “You know your screwed when…”

Note: The premise of this article is taken from various points made on this blog and others. The main point is that the obligation to repay the loan arose when the money transaction took place. When money exchanged hands it is presumed that the expectation was that it would be repaid. So the only defenses that exist and the only two defenses that will get the judge’s attention are PAYMENT and WAIVER. Failing to address these issues head on right at the beginning of the first pleading and the first hearing, will most likely lead to failure in the case. Read the appellate decisions that are in favor of the banks and servicers; they all start with a recitation of “facts” that are not true but which nonetheless are taken as true because the borrower failed to put them in issue as contested facts.

Start with the origination documents. If you don’t know whether they have merely reproduced the note and mortgage, then deny it and make them prove it. They could be fabricated from whole cloth. Continue reading “You Know You Are Going To Lose When …”

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”

Why Did the Banks Need to Falsify and Forge Fabricated Documents?

Posted [on LivingLies] on January 5, 2012 by Neil Garfield

The investors who purchased David Stern’s foreclosure mill have taken the extraordinary step of announcing publicly that they had been duped into buying a “criminal enterprise.” Obviously they didn’t want to get caught up in the dragnet of prosecutors looking for convictions. Nobody would spend $60 million like these investors did and then announce to the world that not only was it worthless, it was worse than worthless. It turns out that once they owned it they discovered that the entire enterprise was based upon criminal and other illegal or improper acts. It will soon be obvious that virtually all the foreclosure mills operated identically to Stern because they were owned and operated by the same people.

Those criminal acts were all about pushing foreclosures through the system. The end result of foreclosure is that somebody gets the house upon entry of a “credit bid” which is to say that they don’t pay cash, they just submit a “bid” based upon the fact that the property was the collateral for money that was due them. Since Stern was not taking the homes, and it is obvious that others were taking the homes, the question is why did they need to go through all those gyrations and subject themselves to prison time if the mortgages were legitimate? Continue reading “Why Did the Banks Need to Falsify and Forge Fabricated Documents?”

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”

L. Randall Wray does it again – Requiem For MERS

L. Randall Wray does it again – Requiem For MERS

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics and Research Director for the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, University of Missouri-Kansas City posted an article on the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com) that I somehow missed. The MERS design was woven in fraud. Professor Wray points out the two main issues with MERS. The first is that most foreclosures are illegal because those doing the foreclosing do not have legal standing. Second the practices that create the foreclosure problems also mean that the mortgage backed securities are actually unsecured debt. Professor Wray says that this means the banks must take them back, so they are toast. He also states that it all comes back to MERS business model: it destroyed the chain of title.

Continue reading “L. Randall Wray does it again – Requiem For MERS”

Foreclosure Mills Continue Down the Wide Path of Destruction

Foreclosure Mills Continue Down the Wide Path of Destruction

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

We have already talked about the foreclosure mills the Law Offices of David J. Stern PA and Ben-Ezra & Katz PA and NDEx West (owned by Dolan Media) with its doppelgänger foreclosure mill law firm, Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engle. Now we turn our attention to Shapiro & Burson apparently out of Maryland. As stated on livinglies.wordpress.com (and originally from 4closurefraud.org), The Baltimore Sun’s Jamie Smith Hopkins reports that 1,000 or more Maryland deeds are likely forgeries that were created by a foreclosure mill (the law firm of Shapiro & Burson). It turns out that last year two other law firms in Maryland admitted they had forged signatures on foreclosure documents in a similar manner (Bierman Geesing & Ward along with Covahey Boozer Devan and Dore). I have already shown that NDEx West (owned by Dolan Media) along with Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engle does the same thing. This is very easy to show for just about any foreclosure mill. Here is how. Just go down to the recorders office and pull up 20 documents in each of the last 3 or 4 years naming your favorite foreclosure mill (NDEx West or whoever). The chances of you not finding one forgery are probably close to 0%. The chances of you finding multiple forgeries is very high (99%+). Continue reading “Foreclosure Mills Continue Down the Wide Path of Destruction”

Securitization Workshop for Attorneys March 19th 2011 in San Francisco

Securitization Workshop for Attorneys March 19th 2011 in San Francisco

By Daniel Edstrom

Join us for our 3rd Securitization Workshop for Attorneys being held in San Francisco on March 19th, 2011. Visit the event website for more information: http://securedocumentresearch.eventbrite.com

This workshop has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) by the State Bar of California. Total credit hours approved are 6.75 hours.

Description of event:

SECURITIZATION WORKSHOP FOR ATTORNEYS
March 19th, 2011 – in San Francisco, CALIFORNIA

Continue reading “Securitization Workshop for Attorneys March 19th 2011 in San Francisco”