Tag: Wrongful Foreclosure

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:

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”

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””

Two Days Before Illegal Wells Fargo Eviction Ventura Man Commits Suicide – His Widow Needs Your Help

Two Days Before Illegal Wells Fargo Eviction Ventura Man Commits Suicide – His Widow Needs Your Help

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Oriane Rousseau, whose husband tragically took his own life in the face of wrongful foreclosure by Wells Fargo will tell the story of about the shameful behavior of Wells Fargo that led to this preventable tragedy. If you can’t come to the event, visit the event page and send a message of support to Mrs. Rousseau.

Thanks for your help!

More Information:

There will be a press conference at the home of Oriane Rousseau, whose husband tragically took his own life in the face of wrongful foreclosure by Wells Fargo will tell the story of about the shameful behavior of Wells Fargo that led to this preventable tragedy.

Tuesday, May 22, at 12pm, Rousseau Family Home, 580 Wilshire Place, Newbury Park, CA

Facebook event page: https://www.facebook.com/events/175588909235756/

Tax deductible contributions to help Mrs. Rousseau with relocation and funeral expenses can be made at https://www.networkforgood.org/donation/ExpressDonation.aspx?ORGID2=27-1487442
An account of her story can be found at http://www.alternet.org/news/155442/wells_fargo_has_blood_on_its_hands:_desperate_man_commits_suicide_after_shocking_foreclosure_mistreatment_/?page=entire

 

Lawyers Take Note: Wells Fargo Slammed with $3.1 Million Punitive Damages on One Wrongful Foreclosure

Lawyers Take Note: Wells Fargo Slammed with $3.1 Million Punitive Damages on One Wrongful Foreclosure

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Posted by Neil F. Garfield on livinglies.wordpress.com (http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/lawyers-take-note-wells-fargo-slammed-with-3-1-million-punitive-damages-on-one-wrongful-foreclosure/).

GARFIELD PROPOSES NATIONAL LAW FIRM FOR COUNTER-ATTACK
Editor’s Comment:

The most perplexing part of this mortgage mess has been the unwillingness of the legal community to take on the Banks. Besides the intimidation factor the primary source of resistance has been the lack of confidence that any money could be made, ESPECIALLY on contingency. If you were the lawyer in the case reported below, you would be getting a check for fees alone of over $1.2 million on a single case. And as this article and hundreds of others have reported, based upon objective surveys, most of the 5 million homes lost since 2007 were wrongful foreclosures.

So the inventory for lawyers is 5 million homes plus the next 5 million everyone is expecting. Let’s due some simple arithmetic: if 4 million homes were wrongfully foreclosed and the punitive damages were $1 million per house the total take would be $4 Billion with contingency fees at $1.6 Billion. If each house carried $200,000 in compensatory damages, then the total would be increased by $800 Million with Lawyers taking home $320 Million. These figures exceed personal injury and malpractice awards. Why is the legal profession ignoring this opportunity to do something right and make a fortune at the same time?

Right now I’m a little under the weather (open heart surgery) but that hasn’t stopped my associates from rolling out a plan for a national anti-foreclosure firm. I’m only doing this because nobody else will. If you have had a home wrongfully foreclosed or suspect that your current foreclosure is wrongful, write to [email protected] (remember the “F”) and ask for help. Lawyers and victims of wrongful foreclosures should be able to pool their resources to attack the massive foreclosure attack with a massive anti-foreclosure attack.

 DTC Systems readers can write to [email protected] and ask for help.  We will see that your request is sent to the lawyers working on this new program.

Here is the Conclusion from the Order (download below):

Wells Fargo’s actions were not only highly reprehensible, but its subsequent reaction on their exposure has been less than satisfactory. There is a strong societal interest in preventing such future conduct through a punitive award. The total monetary judgment to date is $24,441.65, plus legal interest,$166,873.00 in legal fees and $3,951.96 in costs. Other fees and costs incurred by Jones through the first remand were also incurred and are not included in the foregoing amounts. Because the Court cannot reveal the sealed amount stipulated to by the parties when they settled Jones’ Application for Award of Fees and Costs Related to Remand (“Application”),70 the Court will use Jones’ Application itself as evidence of fees and costs actually incurred up to the date of the Application. The Application and supporting documentation establish that an additional $118,251.93 in attorneys’ fees and $3,596.95 in costs was also incurred by Jones.71 The amounts previously awarded plus the additional amounts incurred establish that the cost to litigate the compensatory portion of this award was $292,673.84. After considering the compensatory damages of $24,441.65 awarded in this case, along with the litigation costs of $292,673.84; awards against Wells Fargo in other cases for the same behavior which did not deter its conduct; and the previous judgments in this case none of which deterred its actions; the Court finds that a punitive damage award of $3,171,154.00 is warranted to deter Wells Fargo from similar conduct in the future. This Court hopes that the relief granted will finally motivate Wells Fargo to rectify its practices and comply with the terms of court orders, plans and the automatic stay.

Download the bankruptcy ruling here:  http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Jones_vs_Wells_Fargo.pdf

 

Wells Fargo Investors Sue Wells Fargo Executives and Directors

Wells Fargo Investors Sue Wells Fargo Executives and Directors

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thanks to Oktay for this complaint. 

Quote

This action arises out of individual defendants’ (as defined herein) illicit business practices and improper statements in connection with its mass processing of loan ownership and servicing documents in furtherance of its efforts to foreclose on lendees whose mortgage loans had entered delinquency.  In particular, the Individual Defendants are responsible for the Company employing illegal practices, including fabricating, improperly altering, or attesting to false information in documents filed with courts to facilitate the foreclosure of homeowners.  For example, Wells Fargo servicing agents falsely maintained in court-filed affidavits and attached loan documentation that the Company was the legal owner of the loan on which they sought to foreclose without reading the affidavit or examining the information contained in the loan documentation.  These improper practices called “robo-signing,” lead to filing and false sworn documents to the court and the wrongful foreclosure of homes for which the Company did not have legal ownership rights. Continue reading “Wells Fargo Investors Sue Wells Fargo Executives and Directors”

Failure to Allege Lack of Default

Failure to Allege Lack of Default

by Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

I came across the following on Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16055101289176414591&q=Restatement+(Third)+Of+Property+(Mortgages)+%C2%A7+5.4&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5):

A. Failure to Allege Lack of Default

First, Nevada law is clear that “[a]n action for the tort of wrongful foreclosure will lie if the trustor or mortgagor can establish at the time the power of sale was exercised or the foreclosure occurred, no breach of condition or failure of performance existed on the mortgagor or trustor’s part which would have authorized the foreclosure or exercise of the power of sale.” Ernestburg v. Mortgage Investors Group, No. 2:08-cv-01304-RCJ-RJJ, 2009 WL 160241, at *6 (D. Nev. Jan. 22, 2009) (internal citations and quotations omitted). The plaintiff must establish that they were not “in default when the power of sale was exercised.” Id. (citing Collins v. Union Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 662 P.2d 610, 623 (Nev. 1983)). Furthermore, a claim for wrongful foreclosure does not arise until the power of sale is exercised. Collins, 662 P.2d at 623.

Continue reading “Failure to Allege Lack of Default”

Patt Morrison on Southern California Public Radio

Patt Morrison on Southern California Public Radio

Listen to the recorded version of the Patt Morrison’s show on scpr.org

http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2010/12/14/who-really-owns-your-housecould-mortgage-transfers/

Guests:

Katherine Porter, visiting professor of bankruptcy, consumer finance & secured credit at the Harvard Law School

Daniel Edstrom, head of the securitization auditing firm DTC-Systems

Securitization issues related to foreclosures and paperwork is discussed.

Katherine Porter states that Wrongful foreclosure is when the house is foreclosed on and there  is no default.  This is an interesting definition because in nearly all cases in securitization, the loans are current.  The obligation is not in default because the Securitization Trustee and the investors have received all payments.  So nearly all Securitization foreclosures are wrongful foreclosures?  That is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to look at.

Why are the loans current in securitization?  Because the servicers and securitization trustees are required and obligated to make the payments whether or not they receive the payment from the homeowner.