security instrument – 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”

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”

Legal Standing At Inception

Legal Standing At Inception

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

No I am not an attorney and no I am not providing legal advice. This is the name of an article I just read posted on Neil Garfield’s LivingLies blog. The article is from Mark Stopa, an attorney in Florida. Read this article first and then come back and read my comments below: http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/legal-standing-at-inception/

When I saw the title, I thought awesome, they will go back to the origination of the loan. But they went back to the time the judicial foreclosure case was filed. This is a good argument and it should be fairly straight forward, or at least as straight forward as anything can be in a legal proceeding. What I was looking for was what I heard this last week from somebody. They went to bankruptcy court and told the judge that they had evidence that their loan was table funded, which means the named lender did not provide the money to fund the loan. The money to fund the loan came from an unknown and undisclosed third party. The bankruptcy judge made a simple statement. The judge said that if the named originator did not fund the loan, then they have nothing to transfer, and the movant in the motion for relief from stay (the bank) would therefore have nothing. This judge understands that the note is only evidence of the obligation, it is not the actual obligation. Transfer of the note or the security instrument (Mortgage, Deed of Trust, Security Deed or Mortgage Deed) without an interest in the obligation itself, is meaningless. That is the type of standing issue that I would like to see attorneys make in all states.

Is this why under Regulation “Z” table funded loans have the presumption of being predatory?

Oregon Does it to MERS Again

Oregon Does it to MERS Again

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Once again MERS is hammered, this time in Federal District Court by the Honorable Owen M. Panner. This judge understands clearly what is going on and has some serious questions. Read this case to understand securitization and foreclosures. Here are some highlights (there are many others):

Should the beneficiary choose to initiate non-judicial foreclosure proceedings, the Act’s recording requirements mandate the recording of any assignments of the beneficial interest in the trust deed.

Nobody held a gun to the head of the servicers and required them to use non-judicial foreclosure. They have the right to choose which action they wish to use – non-judicial or judicial. The problem in this case (and almost all other cases), is that the servicers are making the wrong choices. Why? Money, what else?. It is not their concern that they don’t qualify to use non-judicial foreclosures. It is not their concern that they have to strictly comply with statutes. In 90% or more of all cases the homeowners are walking away so nobody will know anyway right? Oops, now the titles have to be cleaned up because of the mess left behind by the servicers, which have all but destroyed the title records for foreclosed properties. This means that in the future, somebody else will have to file a judicial lawsuit to clean up the title for a property because the servicer made the wrong choice and failed to strictly comply with non-judicial statutes. By the way this problem is understated and far worse than anyone actually imagines or understands at this point.

Continue reading “Oregon Does it to MERS Again”

The Internal Revenue Service is Investigating the Tax-Exempt Status of REMICs

The Internal Revenue Service is investigating the Tax-Exempt Status of REMICs

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Reuters has announced that “The Internal Revenue Service has launched a review of the tax-exempt status of a widely-held form of mortgage-backed securities called REMICs.” This comes after many years of homeowners, lawyers and securitization experts having discussed the shenanigans of Wall Street. The standard industry practice is that loans were never perfected into these REMICs, which required the loans as “qualified mortgages” to be in the REMIC within 90 days of the “startup day”, which corresponds with the trust “closing date”. However, in nearly every case we have seen, the REMIC servicers are doing an assignment of the security instrument into the trust after the loan is in foreclosure in order that whoever is foreclosing has the right to foreclose. Unfortunately once a loan is in default it is no longer a “qualified mortgage” under REMIC laws, not to mention that it is years past the REMIC “startup day”. Nor as Judge Arthur Schack puts it in New York, why is the trustee accepting the conveyance of a non-performing loan into the trust?

Specifically the article says “These banks’ transgressions, confirmed in court decisions and through recent action by federal bank regulators, include the failure to formally transfer ownership of mortgages to the trusts that invested in them and the subsequent creation of fraudulent mortgage assignments and other false documents.” Cease and Desist Consent Orders were just issued against Bank of America, Citibank, HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, US Bank, Wells Fargo, Aurora Bank, EverBank, EverBank Financial Corporation, IMB HoldCo LLC, OneWest, Sovereign Bank, DocX, LPS Default and MERS. Just wait until the Securities and Exchange Commission decides to investigate Sarbanes-Oxley legislation against the statements these entities have made under oath with what the bank regulators found actually happened with them. Continue reading “The Internal Revenue Service is Investigating the Tax-Exempt Status of REMICs”

Appeals Court Ruling Against MERS in Michigan Reverses District Court Non-Judicial Proceedings

Appeals Court Ruling Against MERS in Michigan Reverses District Court Non-Judicial Proceedings

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Selected excerpts:

These consolidated cases each involve a foreclosure instituted by Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS), the mortgagee in both cases. The sole question presented is whether MERS is an entity that qualifies under MCL 600.3204(1)(d) to foreclose by advertisement on the subject properties, or if it must instead seek to foreclose by judicial process. We hold that MERS does not meet the requirements of MCL 600.3204(1)(d) and, therefore, may not foreclose by advertisement.

MERS would purportedly track the mortgage sales internally so as to know for which entity it was holding the mortgage at any given time and, if foreclosure was necessary, after foreclosing on the property, would quit claim the property to whatever lender owned the loan at the time of foreclosure.

Continue reading “Appeals Court Ruling Against MERS in Michigan Reverses District Court Non-Judicial Proceedings”

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: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Monterey_SP_Partnership_vs_WL_Bangham.pdf)

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”