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”

U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez 458 Mass. 637 (2011) – The High Cost of Litigation

U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez 458 Mass. 637 (2011) – The High Cost of Litigation

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

This case is a fiasco beyond imagination.  This boarded up house was the subject of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision where US Bank as Trustee of a securitized trust lost in an attempt to obtain a judicial declaration of clear title.  The investors now have an accounting that they can review.  The losses keep coming month after month and may not be finalized for many more years.  Here is what is being reported to the investors and ratings agencies as of February 2012:

Current Amt: $0.00

Paidoff: 9/2008

Last Report Date: 2/2012

Liquidation: $102,077

Curr Loss (as of 2/2012): $29,832.56

Cumulative loss: $274,340.89

Loss Severity (%): 268.76%

Original Amount: $103,500

The cumulative loss and loss severity are extremely high.  This is not a record high for the amount or the loss severity percentage.  But for a boarded up house that is probably not worth $100,000.00 it sure is quite a hit.   Good thing there are still 440 or so loans in this trust with a current balance of over $88 million.  That makes this small amount easy to swallow.  In reality the loss amount is very low because the loan amount is low.  Another loan in this same pool had a cumulative loss of $770,630.99 and a loss severity of 86.41%.  The loan amount was $900,000.

Now for the real question.  How does a loan for $103,500 actually cost the investors a loss of $274,340.89?  Where does the “exta” amount come from to pay for the loss of this property?


How Do I Order Certified Copies of SEC Filings?

How Do I Order Certified Copies of SEC Filings?

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Send an email to [email protected]
Ask them for ALL filings related to the trust and then give them the exact name of the trust (this can be a challange).  If you can, give them information about one of the filings from this trust (accession number and/or SEC file number).  There are usually not that many files associated with a specific securitized trust.  I received approx. 2,000 pages.  It cost me $26.00 for photocopy fees.
Also you can only request one entity per email.  So if you want copies of information for this trust from the depositor (for instance my static loan level file was in an 8-k from the depositor), you will need to request them separately from the trust entity request.  In this case reference the specific documents you need by date, accession number and SEC filing number (because the depositor usually has a very large number of filings which are probably unrelated to your specific trust).

Tell them you are ready willing and able to pay the fees necessary.  Give them your name and address.  You might want to give them your phone number, but if they have questions they will probably just email you.  I asked them for two copies of everything but they said I will only get one copy.

The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 1

The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 1

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:

Monterey S.P. Partnership v. W. L. Bangham, Inc. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 454 , 261 Cal.Rptr. 587; 777 P.2d 623

Here is a quick overview of what happens in a non-judicial foreclosure.  If you are in a judicial state, this post does not apply directly to your case.  But if you understand what happens in a non-judicial foreclosure, you may get insight into what might apply to your case.

I am not indicating that any of these documents are true or accurate, just that this is what typically happens.

Closing the Transaction

The homeowner executes a note and security instrument (i.e. Deed of Trust).  The parties to the trust created by the Deed of Trust are the trustor (homeowner), trustee (usually a title company) and the beneficiary (either MERS or the named lender).    Everyone seems to assume that the trust was constituted (created), that it is valid and continuing.  This is where the trouble begins (not really, but for this article we will assume it begins here and not before).

Notice of Default

Supposedly the Notice of Default is recorded and sent to the homeowner by the agent for the beneficiary.  Who is the beneficiary?  Looking at my notice of default the only beneficiary mentioned is MERS.  However, other documents sent usually point to one or more other parties who “might” be a beneficiary.

Continue reading “The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 1”