Tag: US Bank

Occupy Leader Bratton Held on $250,000 Bail

Neil_GarfieldOccupy Leader Bratton Held on $250,000 Bail

By Neil F. Garfield
Livinglies.wordpress.com

Occupy Leader Bratton Held on $250,000 Bail

Posted on June 23, 2013 by Neil Garfield

In my judgment, based upon the scant facts and documents supplied to me this far, there is no doubt that Bratton DID own the property and probably still does if the law is applied properly.

I know of cases where probable cause was found for Murder and the bail was set less than that. The calls and emails keep coming in and I can’t say that I have a total picture of what was really going on here. But, based upon what I have the current story is this:

Bratton is one of the leaders in the Occupy movement. It may be true that the Occupy movement has been put on a watch list or even the terrorist list which might account for the high bail. I have not been able to confirm that. But it seems that some inference of that sort was used in getting bail set at a quarter of a million dollars. If so, the government is confusing (intentionally or otherwise) the Occupy movement which is a political movement within the system allowed and encouraged by the U.S. Government — with the sovereign citizen movement for which I have taken a lot of heat.

Continue reading “Occupy Leader Bratton Held on $250,000 Bail”

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?

 

INVESTORS COMING OUT OF THE SHADOWS: BANKS’ WORST NIGHTMARE

INVESTORS COMING OUT OF THE SHADOWS: BANKS’ WORST NIGHTMARE

By Neil F. Garfield
LivingLies.wordpress.com

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/mbs-investors-in-revolt-ultimatums-to-us-bank-and-wells-fargo/

EDITOR’S ANALYSIS: For those who have followed this Blog for any length of time, this news will come as no surprise. Ultimately, the proof and the relief sought by homeowners will come from investors who demand answers to what happened to their money when they purchased mortgage backed securities and pooled their money to fund mortgages.

The result is a pincer action, to put it military terms, where the creditors and the debtors are making the same allegations against the intermediaries who stole from both sides, “borrowed” the loss to claim Federal bailout money, and left both sides holding the bag. Continue reading “INVESTORS COMING OUT OF THE SHADOWS: BANKS’ WORST NIGHTMARE”

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”

Independent Foreclosure Review Engagement Letters

Independent Foreclosure Review Engagement Letters

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has posted the following on its website (http://www.occ.gov/topics/consumer-protection/foreclosure-prevention/independent-review-foreclosure-letters.html).

Independent Foreclosure Review Engagement Letters

Below are links to engagement letters submitted by the independent consultants, retained by servicers regulated by the OCC, who will be conducting foreclosure reviews pursuant to the requirements of the April 13, 2011 consent orders.  The engagement letters describe how the independent consultants will conduct their file reviews and claims processes to identify borrowers who suffered financial injury as a result of servicer deficiencies identified in the OCC’s consent orders.

Limited proprietary and personal information has been redacted from the engagement letters.  Examples of information that has been redacted include, but are not limited to: names, titles and biographies of individuals; proprietary systems information; references to specific bank policy; fees and costs associated with the engagement; and specific descriptions of past work performed by the independent consultants.

Since the acceptance of the engagement letters in September of this year, the independent consultants have further refined and made adjustments to the processes, procedures, and methodologies outlined in the engagement letters in consultation with OCC supervision staff.  Therefore, in many cases the review processes being implemented may differ in some respects from those described in the engagement letters because of subsequent coordination with the OCC.  In particular, there were a number of changes made to integrated claims process to ensure a single, uniform process among the servicers.

Pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 4.12(c), the disclosure of the engagement letters at the OCC’s election has no precedential significance.

Homeowner Taxpayers are Third Party Beneficiaries of HAMP

Homeowner Taxpayers are Third Party Beneficiaries of HAMP

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Georgia judge provides colorful order denying motion to dismiss against US Bank.  Phillips asserts that compliance with HAMP is a condition precedent to foreclosure.

http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Phillips-vs-US-Bank-Homeowners-are-3rd-Party-Beneficiaries-of-HAMP.pdf

Pro Per Debtor Stops Attorneys for US Bank – in RE Deamicis

Pro Per Debtor Stops Attorneys for US Bank – in RE Deamicis

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

She has been fighting toothe and nail.  Nobody was listening.  The current bankruptcy judge was skeptical when she showed up in bankruptcy.  But now his ruling on a motion for relief from stay blows the doors off her case.  It seems that bank attorneys are confused by something that should be very simple for an attorney.  The issue is who is the real party in interest?  Many have failed to comprehend what is in a name.  If a very large bank is included in the name, most just glaze over it and go right to the pleadings.  Here it is in a nutshell: US Bank, NA as Indenture Trustee is MEANINGLESS.  This is because when a trust is involved, the trust is the real party, not the bank.  US Bank is a trustee of hundreds if not thousands of trusts.  Naming them as Trustee does not identify an entity that is real.  In the debtors case, the bank foreclosed on her home in the name of US Bank as Indenture Trustee of [some Terwin Trust].  This was a non-judicial foreclosure.  In the UD (unlawful detainer), which is a judicial case to evict her, the name used was US Bank as Indenture Trustee.  The lawyers did not specify a specific trust.  She lost that case in state court and before she was evicted she filed bankruptcy.  She had to keep objecting and protesting.  Eventually the judge came to the realization that something was wrong.  In fact the judge ruled as follows: 

“The defect cannot be cured, either directly or implicitly, by any ruling this court can make on behalf of the Terwin Trust in the Second 362 Motion.”

I almost fell out of my chair when I read that.  If they put the wrong name, they have to cure the problem.  Based on my research, in a very large number of cases the wrong party is named.  Including yours truly.  Have a nice day, I know I will.

Download the case here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/in-RE-Deamicis-Real-Party-in-Interest-For-Publication.pdf

Consolidated Listing of All Cease and Desist Consent Orders Issued on April 13, 2011

Consolidated Listing of All Cease and Desist Consent Orders Issued on April 13, 2011

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Due to the volume of requests, here is a listing of all known Cease and Desist Consent Orders issued in April 2011 in regards to the Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices.

Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices

Cease and Desist Consent Orders Department of Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency OTS Board of Governers for the Federal Reserve System FDIC FHFA
Bank of America x        
Citibank x        
HSBC x        
JPMorgan Chase Bank x        
US Bank x        
PNC Bank x        
MetLife Bank x        
Wells Fargo Bank x        
Aurora Bank   x      
EverBank   x      
EverBank Financial Corp   x      
IMB HoldCo LLC   x      
OneWest Bank   x      
Sovereign Bank   x      
MERSCORP and MERS x x x x x
LPS Default and DocX x x x x  
SunTrust     x    
Ally Bank / Ally Financial / Residential Capital / GMAC Mortgage     x x  

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”