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”

Control Fraud

Control Fraud

By: Jim Macklin
Secure Document Research

The term “control Fraud” was originally coined by Professor William Black, UMKC. A control fraud essentially starts as a core methodology for the exaction of some enterprise or movement, whether in commerce or at law. The instigators of a control fraud typically have their own self-interests as the motivation for participants to either ignore regulations or laws, or worse yet, to politically pressure or lobby for policy change that suits their agenda(s).

It mattered not that “liar loans”, defective underwriting processes, and securitization obviations were the norm during the run-up to 2008. The control fraud was in place to facilitate complete immunity from prosecution for the big money players at the top of Wall St. Every associated business that derived its income from the mortgage-backed bond sales was expected to follow the guidelines, as set by the fraudsters, or suffer the fate of not working. Everyone from bond insurers, hedge fund managers, realtors and property appraisers had to bend to the poisonous curve…or lose their competitive edge, and thus, their livelihood. When lying becomes the standard upon which your paycheck relies, you are a liar by proxy.

Continue reading “Control Fraud”

FDIC Purchase and Assumption Agreements

FDIC Purchase and Assumption Agreements

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Along with the large number of failed banks, there are a large number of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Purchase and Assumption Agreements.  The National Consumer Law Center was kind enough to publish many of them at the following web page:

Here is the list of Purchase and Assumption Agreements available, as well as some other information:

Purchase and Assumption Agreements

1st American State Bank
1st Centennial Bank
1st Pacific Bank of California
Access Bank
Affinity Bank
All American Bank (amendment)
Allegiance Bank of North America
Alliance Bank
Alpha Bank & Trust
Amcore Bank

Continue reading “FDIC Purchase and Assumption Agreements”

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”