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”

All Assignments of a Mortgage Must Be Recorded Before the Mortgagee Begins Foreclosure by Advertisement

foreclosure_Street2All Assignments of a Mortgage Must Be Recorded Before the Mortgagee Begins Foreclosure by Advertisement

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The Minnesota Supreme Court issued a ruling requiring strict compliance with recording assignments prior to starting a foreclosure by advertisement.

Quote from the ruling:

Under Minn. Stat. § 580.02 (2012), all assignments of a mortgage must be recorded before the mortgagee begins the process of foreclosure by advertisement. Absent strict compliance with this requirement, a foreclosure by advertisement is void.


Download the ruling here:


Occupy Leader Bratton Held on $250,000 Bail

Neil_GarfieldOccupy Leader Bratton Held on $250,000 Bail

By Neil F. Garfield

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”

California Appeals Court: Notice of Default is Void if Description of Default Includes “if any”

Edstrom_MortgageSecuritization_POSTER_17_x_22_v4_1California Appeals Court: Notice of Default is Void if Description of Default Includes “if any”

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thank you to HYDROGENE for this one.  According to this decision, the “if any” in the following of a Notice of Default voids the document:


UPDATE NOTE added 1/9/2012: The Supreme Court of California denied review of this case but ordered that the opinion be not officially published (See California Court–Rules 976, 977 and 979)

Excerpt (fairly long):

Validity Of Notice Of Default
EMC sought to exercise the power of sale in the Deed of Trust on Anolik’s home based on Anolik’s alleged breach of various obligations secured by the Deed of Trust. Anolik alleged in the fourth cause of action in his second amended complaint (for wrongful foreclosure) that “the events of default as alleged . . . in the Notice of Default . . . [we]re false and untrue” and that “the Notice of Default and Election to Sell [wa]s void” as a result.

The trial court concluded the Notice of Default “was proper and is not invalid or void.” Anolik contends the trial court erred in this conclusion. We agree. “The procedure for foreclosing on security by a trustee’s sale pursuant to a deed of trust is set forth in Civil Code section 2924 et seq.”5 (Miller v. Cote (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 888, 894.) Because nonjudicial foreclosure is a “drastic sanction” and a “draconian remedy” (Baypoint Mortgage Corp. v. Crest Premium Real Estate etc. Trust (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 818, 827, 830), “[t]he statutory requirements must be strictly complied with.” (Miller, at p. 894.) Continue reading “California Appeals Court: Notice of Default is Void if Description of Default Includes “if any””

JPMorgan (WaMu) Dismissal Overruled and Judicial Notice of Recorded Documents DENIED

JPMorgan (WaMu) Dismissal Overruled and Judicial Notice of Recorded Documents DENIED

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Attorney J. Edward Kerley (Hereford Kerley LLP) presents a 7 page complaint (4 pages when you remove the case heading and the whitespace) with 4 causes of action (Leon Taylor vs. JPMorgan Chase).  JPMorgan Chase lawyers respond with 211 pages (including exhibits, which make up about 190 pages +/-).  The original note and Deed of Trust named Washington Mutual Bank, FA as the Lender and Beneficiary.

Excerpt from the complaint:

On or before February 27, 2007, Mr. Taylor is informed and believes that his promissory note was sold by Washington Mutual Bank, FA, to WaMu Asset Acceptance Corporation.


The challanged foreclosure is based upon an Assignment of Deed of Trust dated March 15, 2011.  JPMorgan, as successor in interest to Washington Mutual Bank, FA, purports to assign its beneficial interests in the deed of trust to Bank of America, National Association.  The assignment is void and improper because JPMorgan has no right or interest in the promissory note as of March 15, 2011, and such purported assignment is fraudulent and false. Continue reading “JPMorgan (WaMu) Dismissal Overruled and Judicial Notice of Recorded Documents DENIED”

Interesting California Civil Codes

Interesting California Civil Codes

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Those who haven’t read these should read through them for educational purposes.

California Civil Code Selections


Property of any kind may be transferred, except as otherwise provided by this Article.


A mere possibility, not coupled with an interest, cannot be transferred.


A right of reentry, or of repossession for breach of condition subsequent, can be transferred.


Any person claiming title to real property in the adverse possession of another may transfer it with the same effect as if in actual possession.


A grant takes effect, so as to vest the interest intended to be transferred, only upon its delivery by the grantor.


A grant cannot be delivered to the grantee conditionally. Delivery to him, or to his agent as such, is necessarily absolute, and the instrument takes effect thereupon, discharged of any condition on which the delivery was made.


A grant may be deposited by the grantor with a third person, to be delivered on performance of a condition, and, on delivery by the depositary, it will take effect. While in the possession of the third person, and subject to condition, it is called an escrow. Continue reading "Interesting California Civil Codes"

State of Nevada Brings 606 Count Indictment against Two Alleged Robo-signers – Including 404 Felonies

State of Nevada Brings 606 Count Indictment against Two Alleged Robo-signers – Including 404 Felonies

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The indictment is 440 pages long and contains 606 counts against two individuals.  102 misdemeanors and 204 felonies against one person and 100 misdemeanors and 200 felonies against a second person.  It sure seems to me that in a case like this involving recorded documents that mail fraud would be involved.  This is because usually the recorded documents are sent through the mail.

Many, if not all of the documents involved in the indictment are Notices of Default.  If these are forged documents, how can the non-judicial foreclosures have been strictly complied with?  Of course I am not a lawyer, but it would sure seem to me that any document recorded after the Notice of Default would also be void.  But who knows, maybe there is another law that says if the parties performing a non-judicial foreclosure commit 1 misdemeanor and 2 felonies you still lose your house.  This seems unlikely since most non-judicial foreclosure states usually call for strict compliance with the non-judicial foreclosure statutes.

One notary has already pled guilty to one count of notarizing the signature of an individual not in her presence.

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”

Internal Revenue Service Publication 938 – REMICs Reporting Information

Internal Revenue Service Publication 938 – REMICs Reporting Information

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Publication 938 contains a directory listing of REMICs and CDOs.  It contains newly created REMICs and CDOs as well as amended listings to existing REMICs and CDOs.  Interestingly the IRS did not publish this publication for 2008.  Why is this interesting?  It is the peak of the meltdown with the failure of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.  Why is the IRS keeping this information a secret?  I have heard many interesting conspiracy theories, but my guess is “they” feel “we” can’t handle the truth.   From my review of these documents, I only have more questions.  Why are some REMICs not listed?  If Wells Fargo claims that World Savings Bank loans were held in house and not securitized, why are so many World Savings REMICs reported to the IRS?  Why is the REMIC claiming to hold my loan not listed in any of these documents?  Is it a law that all REMICs have to report themselves to the IRS for publication?

The Introduction to Publication 938 for 1996 states:

This publication contains directories relating to real estate mortgage investment conduits (REMICs) and collaterized debt obligations (CDO’s). The directory for each calendar quarter is based on information submitted to the Internal Revenue Service during that quarter. This publication is only available on the IRS electronic bulletin board and the Internet.
For each quarter, there is:
• A directory of new REMICs and CDOs,
• A section containing amended listings.
You can use the directory to find the representative of the REMIC or the issuer of the CDO from whom you can request tax information. The amended listing section shows changes to previously listed REMICs and CDOs.
The directory for each calendar quarter will be added to this publication approximately six weeks after the end of the quarter. Continue reading “Internal Revenue Service Publication 938 – REMICs Reporting Information”

MERS has no agency – New York Bankruptcy Court: in re Agard

The following is a New York Bankruptcy motion for relief from stay ruling from February 10th, 2011




In re:

Case No. 810-77338-reg


Chapter 7




Before the Court is a motion (the “Motion”) seeking relief from the automatic stay

pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2), to foreclose on a secured interest in the Debtor’s real

property located in Westbury, New York (the “Property”). The movant is Select Portfolio

Servicing, Inc. (“Select Portfolio” or “Movant”), as servicer for U.S. Bank National Association,

as Trustee for First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-FF12, Mortgage Pass-Through

Certificates, Series 2006-FF12 (“U.S. Bank”). The Debtor filed limited opposition to the Motion

contesting the Movant’s standing to seek relief from stay. The Debtor argues that the only

interest U.S. Bank holds in the underlying mortgage was received by way of an assignment from

the Mortgage Electronic Registration System a/k/a MERS, as a “nominee” for the original

lender. The Debtor’s argument raises a fundamental question as to whether MERS had the legal

authority to assign a valid and enforceable interest in the subject mortgage. Because U.S. Bank’s

rights can be no greater than the rights as transferred by its assignor – MERS – the Debtor argues

that the Movant, acting on behalf of U.S. Bank, has failed to establish that it holds an

enforceable right against the Property.1 The Movant’s initial response to the Debtor’s opposition was that

MERS’s authority to assign the mortgage to U.S. Bank is derived from the mortgage itself which

allegedly grants to MERS its status as both “nominee” of the mortgagee and “mortgagee of

record.” The Movant later supplemented its papers taking the position that U.S. Bank is a

creditor with standing to seek relief from stay by virtue of a judgment of foreclosure and sale

entered in its favor by the state court prior to the filing of the bankruptcy. The Movant argues

that the judgment of foreclosure is a final adjudication as to U.S. Bank’s status as a secured

creditor and therefore the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits this Court from looking behind the

judgment and questioning whether U.S. Bank has proper standing before this Court by virtue of a

valid assignment of the mortgage from MERS.
Continue reading “MERS has no agency – New York Bankruptcy Court: in re Agard”