Tag: Promissory Note

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”

GMAC Residential Capital Lists 200-999 Creditors, Failing to Disclose Tens of Thousands of Homeowner Claims

GMAC Residential Capital Lists 200-999 Creditors, Failing to Disclose Tens of Thousands of Homeowner Claims

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Note that the original article has been updated to fix my mistake of showing 299 creditors when the number of creditors listed on the Voluntary Petition was 200-999.  On April 13, 2011 the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued a Cease and Desist Consent Order against Ally Financial Inc. fka GMAC LLC, Ally Bank fka GMAC Bank, Residential Capital LLC (and its direct and indirect subsidiaries) and GMAC Mortgage LLC.  During the period of 1/1/2009 to 12/31/2010, the Mortgage Servicing Companies completed 89,998 foreclosure actions, representing less than 4 percent of the Servicing Portfolio over such such time period.  View the attached Voluntary Petition below to see the number of creditors identified.   The regulators found the following:

WHEREAS, in connection with the process leading to certain foreclosures involving the Servicing Portfolio, the Mortgage Servicing Companies allegedly:

  1. Filed or caused to be filed in state courts and in connection with bankruptcy proceedings in federal courts numerous affidavits executed by employees of the Mortgage Servicing Companies or employees of third-party providers making various assertions, such as the ownership of the mortgage note and mortgage, the amount of principal and interest due, and the fees and expenses chargeable to the borrower, in which the affiant represented that the assertions in the affidavit were made based on personal knowledge or based on a review by the affiant of the relevant books and records, when, in many cases, they were not based on such knowledge or review;
  2. Filed or caused to be filed in courts in various states and in connection with bankruptcy proceedings in federal courts or in the local land record offices, numerous affidavits and other mortgage-related documents that were not properly notarized, including those not signed or affirmed in the presence of a notary;
  3. Litigated foreclosure and bankruptcy proceedings and initiated non-judicial foreclosures without always confirming that documentation of ownership was in order at the appropriate time, including confirming that the promissory note and mortgage document were properly endorsed or assigned and, if necessary, in the possession of the appropriate party;
  4. Failed to respond in a sufficient and timely manner to the increased level of foreclosures by increasing financial, staffing, and managerial resources to ensure that the Mortgage Servicing Companies adequately handled the foreclosure process; and failed to respond in a sufficient and timely manner to the increased level of Loss Mitigation Activities to ensure timely, effective and efficient communication with borrowers with respect to Loss Mitigation Activities and foreclosure activities; and
  5. Failed to have adequate internal controls, policies and procedures, compliance risk management, internal audit, training, and oversight of the foreclosure process, including sufficient oversight of outside counsel and other third-party providers handling foreclosure-related services with respect to the Servicing Portfolio. Continue reading “GMAC Residential Capital Lists 200-999 Creditors, Failing to Disclose Tens of Thousands of Homeowner Claims”

NTEX Realty vs Tacker – 3rd Oklahoma Supreme Court Decision Against Foreclosing Banks

NTEX Realty vs Tacker – 3rd Oklahoma Supreme Court Decision Against Foreclosing Banks

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Following two previous rulings favorable to homeowners, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma rules against another foreclosing bank.  This ruling is short and fully excerpted here (or download a PDF at the end of this article).

NTEX REALTY, LP v. TACKER
2012 OK 26
NTEX REALTY, LP, Plaintiff/Appellee,v.CINDY A. TACKER and THERON TACKER, WIFE AND HUSBAND, Defendants/Appellants,
No. 109824.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

April 3, 2012.

Phillip A. Taylor, TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellants.
Charles C. Ward, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellee.
——————————————————————————–
THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.
COMBS, J.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY.
¶ 1. On January 26, 2007, Appellants executed a promissory note (hereinafter “Note”) payable to Home Funds Direct, Inc. (hereinafter “Lender”). To secure payment of the Note, Appellants executed and delivered to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), as nominee for Lender, as mortgagee, a certain mortgage (hereinafter “Mortgage”), which conveyed and mortgaged to the mortgagee certain real property located in Rogers County, Oklahoma. In both the Note and Mortgage, Home Funds Direct, Inc., is named as the Lender and Payee. Appellants defaulted on the Note on July 1, 2010. Appellee initiated foreclosure proceedings on October, 27, 2010. A copy of the non-indorsed Note and Mortgage was included with the petition.
¶ 2. In their answer, Appellants denied that Appellee owned any interest in the Note and Mortgage, and challenged the authenticity of the documents included in the petition. Appellants then demanded production of the original Note and Mortgage. Appellee moved for summary judgment on March 3, 2011. In an attached affidavit, Appellee asserted that it currently held both the Note and Mortgage at issue, and again produced a copy of both the unindorsed Note and Mortgage. In response, Appellants argued that Appellee’s motion for summary judgment was improper because the Note had never been negotiated. Appellants also asserted that because the copy of the Note was purportedly a “full, true, and correct copy of said Note,” the original must also not be indorsed. Based on these reasons, Appellants concluded Appellee could not be the holder of the Note and, therefore, was not the proper party to bring a foreclosure proceeding. Continue reading “NTEX Realty vs Tacker – 3rd Oklahoma Supreme Court Decision Against Foreclosing Banks”

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Deciding Hundreds of Years of Real Property Law Regarding MERS

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Deciding Hundreds of Years of Real Property Law Regarding MERS

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

In Eaton vs. FNMA, the Supreme Judicial Court is asking for additional briefings to help with the following “issue”:

1/16/2012 #17

ORDER :Having heard oral argument and considered the written submissions of the parties and the various amici curiae, the court hereby invites supplemental briefing on the points described below. Supplemental briefs shall not exceed fifteen pages and shall be filed on or before January 23, 2012. 1. It has been claimed that requiring a unity of the mortgage and the underlying promissory note, in order for there to be a valid foreclosure, would cloud any title that has a foreclosure in the chain of title, regardless of how long ago the foreclosure occurred. The parties are invited to address whether they believe that such a requirement would have such an effect, and if so, what legal or practical measures exist that might limit the consequences of such a requirement. 2. It also has been suggested that, if the court were to hold that unity of the mortgage and note is required under existing law, the court’s holding should be applied prospectively only. The parties are invited to indicate on what authority they believe (or do not believe) the court could make such a holding prospective only.

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
 

The OCC Misses the Point on Toxic Waste

The OCC Misses the Point on Toxic Waste

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

We all see what we want to see.  But when others control the conversation, it is easy to miss the point.  As a regulator the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency should be taking the lead and controlling the conversation, but in reality, they have been bridled and are being led around by the nose.  Conspiciously absent are numerous issues they as a regulator have the responsibility of dealing with.  This article is timely in response to an article by Neil F. Garfield (http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/the-big-lie-banks-did-nothing-illegal/), which is a response to Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism article (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/more-msm-criticism-of-obama-nothing-illegal-here-move-along-stance-on-foreclosure-fraud.html), which is a response to a Reuters article (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/22/us-foreclosures-idUSTRE7BL0MC20111222).  But I found none of these articles until I was finished writing this post.  Take the following random and critical issues:

  • Are the loans in the pool?  Were the loans ever in the pool?  Does the pool exist?  Did the pool perfect interest in any of the loans?  This issue is very political and the OCC in our opinion will never address this issue or look into this.
  • What loans are in default?  Can a loan be in default?  What comes first, the default or the loss?
  • Are there any compliance issues?

Continue reading “The OCC Misses the Point on Toxic Waste”

World Savings Bank: Wells Fargo Admits Loans Were Securitized

Wells FargoWorld Savings Bank: Wells Fargo Admits Loans Were Securitized
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
http://www.dtc-systems.net
http://livinglies.wordpress.com

In a huge disclosure, Wells Fargo Bank has admitted that World Savings loans were securitized.  This is a big move for homeowners strapped with Option ARM negative amortization loans.  In recent months we have seen numerous endorsements on World Savings promissory notes showing that the notes were in fact endorsed to The Bank of New York.  This is not an isolated incident as we now have 3 confirmed cases where World Savings notes were endorsed to The Bank of New York.  Foreclosure defense lawyers have been seeking to know what this information means for their clients.  These details are revealed in the LivingLies / Luminaq / AHC combo and in the DTC Systems Securitization Reverse Engineering and Failure Analysis for Lawyers (disclosure: DTC Systems provides their unique and premier Securitization Reverse Engineering and Failure Analysis and also provides services to Attorney Neil F. Garfield’s Securitization Report and Securitization Commentary, which is included in the LivingLies Combo).

Here is the original World Savings post: https://dtc-systems.com/world-savings-bank-loans-were-securitizated/

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?”

Irreconcilable Differences… I want a Mortgage Divorce!

Irreconcilable Differences… I want a Mortgage Divorce!

By James Macklin
Secure Document Research

Promissory Note Terms Vs. PSA/Prosectus Terms

When we are handed a voluminous stack of documents at the closing table for our mortgage transaction, a Borrower is expected to make a decision based upon the duty and care that the party who drafted these “investment contracts” has placed into them. However, none of us at the closing table has any idea what most of the words, phrases, and legal terminologies actually means… especially those affecting our rights as a consumer and as a real property owner.
Within the typical language of a Pooling and Servicing Agreement executed by the players of the securitization financing, there are countless references to the “interests” of the asset being conveyed, or, your Note and Deed. Interests are a finicky word of art used. The word simply means this: the asset, along with all of its’ benefits and liabilities. These are the “interests” being conveyed with the sale, set-over, transfer, conveyance, etc. So, under the terms of the Note we signed, look to the section titled: “Who is obligated under the Note” (usually sec. nine (9)). Here you will find that myriad entities may be, and probably are, also obligated under this same Note. These are the terms you have agreed to and bargained for. But the banking intermediaries would have us believe otherwise, as exhibited in the PSA under such language as: “The Depositor, Sponsor/Seller, Swap Counterparty, Master Servicer, Trustee do not intend for any obligation of themselves or their agents or employees to arise as a result of this Agreement”. This is contradictive to the terms and conditions that we have agreed to. Because the intervening assignments are a functional necessity to the bankruptcy remoteness of these assets, the specific substance of the PSA must be followed, including the mandate for the indorsement of each intervening assignment, along with the recordation of those assignment in the proper land title records office within the State of jurisdiction.
Let’s go back to the language of the “Who is Obligated” section of our Note. Notice that anyone who endorses the instrument is also obligated under the Note. Does this create an unknown Obligor at closing? If an un-named Beneficiary is the result of the unilateral agreement known as a Promissory Note”, how do we have the understanding necessary to execute such a critical document? It is the contention of this author, supported by the very agreements signed under oath and filed for record with the SEC, that “interests” and “obligations” are synonomous within the four corners of the agreement we signed…and the agreements signed by the intermediaries. A court of competent jurisdiction shall be posed these foundational questions very soon, and often. Are we a party to these agreements known as PSA/Prospectus? If we do a simple word search on each of these and look for references to: Borrower, Mortgagor, Obligor, we find these terms are typically used in excess of 60-75 times. Yet we were never disclosed the terms and conditions of the actual “loan” transaction as it truly was executed, and the rights, duties and responsibilities of the intermediaries. These are material disclosures relative to fees, expenses and various credit enhancements which are attributed to the Borrowers’ payment stream.
A divorce from this menagerie of deceit is not only appropriate, but a right that is being tried in many courtrooms. I believe that the judiciary will be tested on many platforms and small but visceral victories shall carry the day.

BofA Mortgage Morass Deepens on Promissory Notes Issues

BofA Mortgage Morass Deepens on Promissory Notes Issues

By Prashant Gopal and Jody Shenn – Nov 30, 2010

Testimony by a Bank of America Corp. employee in a New Jersey personal bankruptcy case may give more ammunition to homeowners and investors in their legal battles over defaulted mortgages.

Linda DeMartini, a team leader in the company’s mortgage- litigation management division, said during a U.S. Bankruptcy Court hearing in Camden last year that it was routine for the lender to keep mortgage promissory notes even after loans were bundled by the thousands into bonds and sold to investors, according to a transcript. Contracts for such securitizations usually require the documents to be transferred to the trustee for mortgage bondholders.

In the case, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judith H. Wizmur on Nov. 16 rejected a claim on the home of John T. Kemp, ruling his mortgage company, now owned by Bank of America, had failed to deliver the note to the trustee. That could leave the trustee with no standing to take the property, and raises the question of whether other foreclosures could similarly be blocked.

Following the decision, the bank disavowed the statements by DeMartini, whom it had flown in from California to testify. It was the policy of Countrywide Financial Corp., acquired by Bank of America in July 2008, to deliver notes as called for in its securitization contracts, according to Larry Platt, an attorney at K&L Gates LLP in Washington designated by the bank to answer questions about the case. Continue reading “BofA Mortgage Morass Deepens on Promissory Notes Issues”