Tag: Trust

Glaski Decision in California Appellate Court Turns the Corner on “Getting It”

Neil_GarfieldGlaski Decision in California Appellate Court Turns the Corner on “Getting It”

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The following article was posted by Neil F. Garfield of livinglies.wordpress.com and comes from the following URL: http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/glaski-decision-in-california-appellate-court-turns-the-corner-on-getting-it/

On the other hand we should not assume that they have arrived nor that this decision will have pervasive effects throughout California or elsewhere in the United States or other countries.

J.P. Morgan did suffer a crushing defeat in this decision. And the borrower definitely receive the benefits of a judicial decision that will allow the borrower to sue for wrongful foreclosure including equitable and legal relief which in plain language means reversing the foreclosure and getting damages. Probably one of the most damaging conclusions by the appellate court is that an examination of whether the loan ever made it into the asset pool is proper in determining the proper party to initiate a foreclosure or to offer a credit bid at a foreclosure auction.  The court said that alleged transfers into the trust after the cutoff date are void under New York State law which is the law that governs the common-law trusts created by the banks as part of the fraudulent securitization scheme.

Continue reading “Glaski Decision in California Appellate Court Turns the Corner on “Getting It””

Perils of Pooling: OneWest

Neil_GarfieldPerils of Pooling: OneWest

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The following article was posted by Neil F. Garfield of livinglies.wordpress.com and comes from the following URL: http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/perils-of-pooling-onewest/

Apparently my article yesterday hit a nerve. NO I wasn’t saying that the only problems were with BofA and Chase. OneWest is another example. Keep in mind that the sole source of information to regulators and the courts are the ONLY people who understand mergers and acquisitions. So it is a little like one of those TV shows where the only way they can get an arrest and conviction is for the perpetrator or suspect to confess. In this case, they “confess” all kinds of things to gain credibility and then lead the agencies and judicial system down a rabbit hole which is now a well trodden path. So many people have gone down that hole that most people that is the way to get to the truth. It isn’t. It is part of a carefully constructed series of complex conflicting lies designed carefully by some very smart lawyers who understand not just the law but the way the law works. The latter is how they are getting away with it.

Continue reading “Perils of Pooling: OneWest”

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”

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”

Wells Fargo Does It Again – This Time Investors Take a Hit

Wells Fargo Does It Again – This Time Investors Take a Hit

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Since Wells Fargo Bank has been around since the Gold Rush days and are such a large lender and securitizer, you would think that they would have state of the art systems handling the servicing of loans.  Especially in light of the huge rush to securitize anything and everything in the last 10 years.  But apparently the meltdown has moved them beyond what their systems are capable of.  This is probably especialy true given that banks are for the most part not lending much anymore (very limited number of new loans), but the number of loans in default, foreclosure, bankruptcy and REO status has skyrocketed. Pushing through so many foreclosures and processing so many advances and distributions is weighing down on their systems and infrastructure.  In their latest March statements to certificateholders (investors who purchased certificates from securitized trusts), Wells Fargo (usually as a Master Servicer or Servicer) is giving investors this disclosure on the first page of the reports:

 NOTE: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is processing an extraordinary expense charge related to the analysis, creation, and implementation of new and enhanced systems and processes necessitated by significant and unanticipated changes in industry and market conditions.

Continue reading “Wells Fargo Does It Again – This Time Investors Take a Hit”

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 2

The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 2

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)

This is a continuation from The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 1 (http://dtc-systems.net/2011/01/wrong-remedy-wrong-time-part-1/).

It turns out that if you want to modify the Trust created by your Deed of Trust, or if you want to determine if the trust exists, you need to petition the court under California Probate Code 17200.  If you are not in California, but are in a Deed of Trust state, your state probably has similar probate laws.

In order to petition the court, California Probate Code 17200 has the following provision:

“(a) Except as provided in Section 15800, a trustee or beneficiary of a trust may petition the court under this chapter concerning the internal affairs of the trust or to determine the existence of the trust.”

Right off the bat we find that only a trustee or a beneficiary has the ability to petition the court under 17200.  If no trustee is specified, the default trustee is the trustor (the parties that executed the note – i.e. the homeowners).  The beneficiaries can easily substitute in a new trustee if that occurs.  But what if Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) is named as the beneficiary?  Consider California Mortgage and Deed of Trust Practice § 1.39 (3d ed Cal CEB 2008) § 1.39 (1) the Beneficiary Must Be Obligee:  The beneficiary must be an obligee of the secured obligation (usually the payee of a note), because otherwise the deed of trust in its favor is meaningless. Watkins v Bryant (1891) 91 C 492, 27 P 775; Nagle v Macy (1858) 9 C 426. See §§ 1.8-1.19 on the need for an obligation. The deed of trust is merely an incident of the obligation and has no existence apart from it. Goodfellow v Goodfellow (1933) 219 C 548, 27 P2d 898; Adler v Sargent (1895) 109 C 42, 41 P 799; Turner v Gosden (1932) 121 CA 20, 8 P2d 505. The holder of the note, however, can enforce the deed of trust whether or not named as beneficiary or mortgagee. CC § 2936; see § 1.23.

Continue reading “The Wrong Remedy at the Wrong Time, Part 2”