Glaski vs Bank of America NA et al – FOR PUBLICATION

Glaski vs Bank of America NA et al – FOR PUBLICATION

Edstrom_MortgageSecuritization_POSTER_17_x_22_v4_1By 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:



THOMAS A. GLASKI,Plaintiff and Appellant,v.


Defendants and Respondents.


(Super. Ct. No. 09CECG03601)



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.



            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”

FDIC Purchase and Assumption Agreements

FDIC Purchase and Assumption Agreements

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Along with the large number of failed banks, there are a large number of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Purchase and Assumption Agreements.  The National Consumer Law Center was kind enough to publish many of them at the following web page:

Here is the list of Purchase and Assumption Agreements available, as well as some other information:

Purchase and Assumption Agreements

1st American State Bank
1st Centennial Bank
1st Pacific Bank of California
Access Bank
Affinity Bank
All American Bank (amendment)
Allegiance Bank of North America
Alliance Bank
Alpha Bank & Trust
Amcore Bank

Continue reading “FDIC Purchase and Assumption Agreements”

BB&T Fraudulently Declares Default – Florida Court Orders FDIC Payments From Loss-Share Agreements to be Credited to Borrowers Loan

BB&T Fraudulently Declares Default – Florida Court Orders FDIC Payments From Loss-Share Agreements to be Credited to Borrowers Loan

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thanks to Neil F. Garfield and the LivingLies Blog for this ruling.   The following are excerpts from Judge Levens orders.

Findings of Fact

This case involves a $5,182,128.00 commercial loan made by Colonial Bank to Kraz for the purpose of building and developing a mini-storage and flex space warehouse in Hillsborough County, Florida. Kearney and Harris signed limited personal guaranties of payment and performance and injected in excess of 2 million dollars of cash/equity into the venture. This subject loan was one of several loans made by Colonial Bank to Kearney and Harris and related entities with multiple other guarantors, but the subject loan was not tied to or related to any other such loans.

The terms of the subject loan provided for payment of interest only for the first twentyfour (24) months. Plaintiff was required to provide written notice of the change from interest-only payments to principal-and-interest payment, but, for whatever reason, Plaintiff never provided such notice. Colonial, due to its own internal financial distress, and while Defendants were current on all payments, began improperly demanding that Defendants make curtailment payments on the loan. Colonial improperly based such curtailment demands on the status of other, unrelated loans (which happened to have a variety of principals, obligators, guarantors, etc.).

Colonial was shut down by the Alabama State Banking Department and the FDIC was appointed its Receiver. The FDIC then assigned and sold the assets of Colonial to Plaintiff through a Purchase and Assumption Agreement (“PSA”), which makes Plaintiff the lawful owner and holder of the subject loan documents.

The evidence adduced at trial and considered by the court demonstrated that Plaintiff breached it duties of good faith and fair dealing in its contractual relationship with Defendants. The evidence also demonstrated that Plaintiff was motivated to behave in such as manner as a direct result of the PSA; that is, Plaintiff stood to profit by declaring a fraudulent default under the subject loan, collecting from the FDIC under the PSA for such default, and then enforcing the subject loan against Defendants, and retaining the property until such time as a real estate turnaround occurred in hopes to dispose of the property at the peak of the market. In fact, Mr. Bruni testified that Plaintiff may have already applied to the FDIC for a loss share payment on this loan. And Defendants’ expert, Jim Howard, explained that it was possible Plaintiff could have already applied for and received a payment from the FDIC on this loan, perhaps in an amount as high as $1,800,000.00. Notably, Plaintiff nowhere credited such potential payment from the FDIC against the amounts sought in the instant litigation; thereby giving the impression that Plaintiff might be “double dipping”, and possibly “triple dipping” if market conditions favorably change and the property likewise increases in value. Continue reading “BB&T Fraudulently Declares Default – Florida Court Orders FDIC Payments From Loss-Share Agreements to be Credited to Borrowers Loan”