trustee – DTC Systems Inc

Glaski vs Bank of America NA et al – FOR PUBLICATION

Glaski vs Bank of America NA et al – FOR PUBLICATION

By 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:

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THOMAS A. GLASKI,Plaintiff and Appellant,v.

BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION et al.

Defendants and Respondents.

F064556

(Super. Ct. No. 09CECG03601)

OPINION

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.

-ooOoo-

INTRODUCTION

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”

Perils of Pooling: OneWest

Perils 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”

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”

In RE Androes – World Savings Bank lien avoided in Kansas Bankruptcy in February 2008

In RE Androes – World Savings Bank lien avoided in Kansas Bankruptcy in February 2008

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

In this Chapter 7 bankruptcy the trustee was able to avoid the lien from a World Savings Bank loan because the mortgage acknowledgement was missing a date. As such the lien was never perfected.

Excerpt 1

Trustee Carl B. Davis seeks summary judgment on his complaint against debtor Mark Androes and World Savings Bank (“World Bank”).1 Trustee’s complaint seeks (1) to avoid World Bank’s mortgage on Androes’ homestead as unperfected because the acknowledgment of the debtor’s signature is undated and (2) to avoid as preferential World Bank’s lis pendens to the extent it attached to the home. World Bank filed a response to the Trustee’s motion and a counter motion for summary judgment.2 The Trustee filed a reply to World Bank’s response, which also served as his response to World Bank’s motion for summary judgment.3 World Bank filed a reply to the Trustee’s response to its motion for summary judgment.4 Debtor filed no response. Continue reading “In RE Androes – World Savings Bank lien avoided in Kansas Bankruptcy in February 2008”

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”

US Bank is not the Note Holder – North Carolina: Bass vs. US Bank

US Bank is not the Note Holder – North Carolina: Bass vs. US Bank

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

This case is listed here without comment. The issues of endorsements, allonges, burden of proof, etc. are raised here and are very illuminating.

In the Matter of the foreclosure of a Deed of Trust executed by Tonya R. Bass in the original amount of $139,988.00 dated October 12, 2005, recorded in Book 4982, Page 86, Durham County Registry,
Substitute Trustee Services, Inc., as Substitute Trustee,

No. COA11-565.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2011.

K&L Gates, LLP, by A. Lee Hogewood III, and Brian C. Fork for Petitioner-appellant.

Legal Aid of North Carolina, Inc., by E. Maccene Brown, Gregory E. Pawlowski, John Christopher Lloyd, and Andre C. Brown, for Respondent-appellee.

ROBERT N. HUNTER, JR., Judge.

U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee, c/o Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Petitioner”) appeals the trial court’s order dismissing foreclosure proceedings against Respondent Tonya R. Bass. Petitioner assigns error to the trial court’s determination that Petitioner is not the legal holder of a promissory note executed by Respondent and therefore lacks authorization to foreclose on Respondent’s property securing the note under a deed of trust. After careful review, we affirm.

I. Factual & Procedural Background Continue reading “US Bank is not the Note Holder – North Carolina: Bass vs. US Bank”

Title Crisis – Part II – The Documents used to Foreclose are Fraudulent

Title Crisis – Part II – The Documents used to Foreclose are Fraudulent

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The following was just posted on Neil Garfield’s blog, livinglies.wordpress.com. It is reposted here with the following comments. These are fabricated documents placed into the title record at the county recorders. In non-judicial states these documents do not need to be recorded to foreclose as those foreclosing can instead file a judicial foreclosure and prove their claim. Because they have no claim and cannot prove it, they knowingly, willingly and without any regard for the consequences, choose to corrupt the land title records instead. To read about this choice, read the Hooker vs. BofA ruling from a Federal District Court judge out of Oregon: Hooker-v-BofA_and_MERS – Congratulations to Oregon Attorney James Stout for his work on this case.

From Neil Garfield and Lynn Szymoniak (see Lynn Szymoniak in action on 60 Minutes here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20049744-10391709.html)

EDITOR’S NOTE (Neil Garfield): We know the foreclosures were gross misrepresentations of fact to the Courts, to the Borrowers and to the Investors. This article shows the crossover between the MegaBanks — sharing and diluting the responsibility for these fabrications as they went along. If you are talking about one big bank you are talking about all the megabanks. Continue reading “Title Crisis – Part II – The Documents used to Foreclose are Fraudulent”

Title Crisis

Title Crisis

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

If you thought this was a foreclosure crisis brought about by the Mortgage Meltdown, you would be wrong. If this were a foreclosure crisis only those in foreclosure would be the ones having problems. And only those loans in foreclosure would be the ones having title issues and “robo-signer” issues. I cannot say this loud enough: FORECLOSURE IS NOT THE PROBLEM. Homeowners not making payments is not the problem. “Freeing up” credit to stimulate lending is not the problem. If you didn’t get a subprime loan, and yours is a 30 year fixed, you are at risk of a clouded title almost as much as anyone in foreclosure. In fact, if you have refinanced or purchased your house from 2000 or later, you could easily have a defect in title. Since I am not a lawyer and can only give myself legal advice, I will only discuss my own case. And of course these are only my opinions based on my knowledge, education, training and research. Apparently my title company thinks my title is good. I know because somebody asked them and they said it was good. At the end of the article I will explain why they would say that. What they meant to say was “Everything is great because we, as a title company, are not at risk at all based on our review of your title”. Continue reading “Title Crisis”

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”

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”