Interesting…
Wells Fargo WFC, +0.54% Chief Executive Timothy Sloan received total compensation of $18.4 million in 2018, according to the bank’s proxy statement released Wednesday, an increase of $1 million. Though his performance share award was $1 million less, he received a $2 million annual incentive due to what the bank called his “continued leadership on the Company’s top priority of rebuilding trust, and his performance against his 2018 individual qualitative performance objectives.”
“And take note that not all promissory notes are necessarily negotiable instruments and that therefore they too are not entitled to the benefit of legal presumptions under Article 3.” Especially if these are securities transactions rather than traditional mortgages.
Watch out for the discrepancy between enforcement of a note and enforcement of an encumbrance. Enforcement of the note requires proof that the claimant is the owner of the debt, or has been authorized by the owner of the debt to enforce the note. Enforcement of the mortgage requires that the claimant be the owner of the debt.
Judgment on the note can be rendered based upon legal presumptions arising from the UCC as adopted by state law as it applies to negotiable instruments. Mortgages (deeds of trust) are not negotiable instruments. The courts err when they apply Article 3 presumptions to the enforcement of a mortgage.
And take note that not all promissory notes are necessarily negotiable instruments and that therefore they too are not entitled to the benefit of legal presumptions under Article 3.
Always remember that legal presumptions are not intended to created findings of act that are contrary to reality. Quite the contrary, they are intended only as a convenience by which the court, in the…
View original post 763 more words
“The plain wording of the statute says that once the notice is sent the OLD loan agreement is replaced with a NEW statutory mandatory loan agreement. This is the factor that is missed by most lawyers and judges on trial and appellate courts.“
Client goes into the office of an attorney and tells him/her that a notice of rescission was sent. The attorney without studying the issue says the rescission never happened. And so it goes.
In my opinion once the time limits have expired on claims arising from TILA (which includes the debt) the county recorder should remove the encumbrance from the chain of title or be ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction.
View original post 512 more words
“I think what the judge is telling you is that if you want to do something, in his opinion, you should file necessary papers to remove the DOT from your chain of title.“
One common thread in the emails I receive is the complaint that the borrower’s lawyer failed to agree or find that the the debt, note or mortgage was owned by a trust. The reason for that is that in order for “the trust” to be the owner of the debt, it must exist.
In most cases, if you look carefully you will see that even in nonjudicial foreclosures and always in judicial foreclosures there actually is no assertion that a trust exists, or that the certificate holders have an interest in the subject debt, or that the “trustee” owns the debt on its own behalf or on behalf of anyone else. Instead, everyone seems to assume that the assertion was made. But I have found no instance in which the assertions were actually made. The result is that homeowners are fighting a ghost.
View original post 702 more words
“This is your opportunity to drill home the fact that they did not, in their complaint, identify the Plaintiff. While US Bank is a legal entity, it is not appearing on its own behalf. This leaves the question of “on whose behalf” do the attorneys attempt to state that US Bank is appearing?”
Legal procedure is difficult to master in one sweep. But in all events you should know that everything before trial is strictly procedure and that your notions about right and wrong are almost besides the point. The purpose of procedural rules is to enable the parties to narrow the issues that must be decided and that usually means testing the sufficiency of what was said. And that simply means a test to see whether what was said actually means something legally.
==============================
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of…
View original post 1,357 more words
By Sydney Sullivan
The main focus on The Foreclosure Hour this week, Blackrock & PIMCO, et al v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, was so powerful it deserves to be highlighted. As usual legal protocol, the Plaintiffs’ claims are accepted by the court to be true. For example, the next move for the Defendant might be to file a motion to dismiss, a court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
WARNING: The contents of this complaint is likely to make certain foreclosure judges with hefty Plaintiff hedge funds preferred shares in their investment portfolios extremely nauseous.
Plaintiffs Blackrock & PIMCO and a multitude of subsidiaries, affiliates, associates, closely related and closely held companies for each sued U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION for BREACH OF CONTRACT; VIOLATION OF THE TRUST INDENTURE ACT OF 1939; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; BREACH OF DUTY OF INDEPENDENCE; AND NEGLIGENCE.
View original post 2,306 more words
Europeans are a stone’s throw across the pond and what happens there eventually, like the Beatles, happens here. Many in the Euro-zone are asking each other and themselves:
“Is your money safe in the bank? Obviously not if you deposited large sums in Cyprus – where the decision to raid savings accounts has rung alarm bells in other countries teetering on the bank bailout high-wire,” postsGiles Tremlett of the UK’s Guardian News.
View original post 1,605 more words
In re Vertullo, 593 B.R. 92 (Bankr. D. N.H. 2018) –
A mortgagee that sold a chapter 13 debtor’s home in a prepetition foreclosure auction but had not yet recorded a foreclosure deed sought relief from the automatic stay in order to evict the debtor. In the meantime, the debtor filed a plan that proposed to cure the prepetition mortgage defaults and continue payments. The bankruptcy court had to decide whether the mortgagee had completed the foreclosure sale within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code and whether the debtor retained sufficient interest in the property to allow her to exercise a right to cure the mortgage defaults.
View original post 809 more words
American Homeowners have known for over a decade that lower court judges were either in over their heads when it came to securitization/rehypothecation foreclosures, incapable of deciphering rule of law, or protecting their personal portfolios where much of their mutual funds investments are loaded with worthless UNREGULATED DERIVATIVES.
AMERICANS AGAINST FORECLOSURES ( AAF ) EVIDENCE OF JUDGES ON THE TAKE IN UNLAWFUL FORECLOSURES?
Apparently the worse nightmare for over 2mm homeless families as a result of unlawful foreclosures has just come true. Judges might have been on the take and not objective according to a recent testimony by a Judge in Florida.
Americans Against Foreclosures ( AAF ) has decided to join the independent international civil and political rights Organization known as Actions for Justice ( AXJ ) to investigate and get to the bottom of it. www.aaf.news
The securitization/rehypothecation scheme relies on USPTO patents to make the corruption appear to be legal and approved by the federal government. Are “traditional mortgages” new inventions? Where are the laws for these quasi-securities transactions? If they don’t exist, are these transactions even legal? Remember, American Homeowners had no disclosure that their properties were being gambled on Wall Street – over and over and over.
Securitization is a relatively new innovation given the operation of the traditional mortgage loan industry over the last 70 years.
What is routinely overlooked is the fact that this entire new process and product development has been patented in the USTPO extensively by the banks. The loans that were sold at the turn of the century through present day are NOT traditional mortgage loans. This fact is further complicated because there was no meeting of the minds when the contracts were formed. Additionally, there are multiple defects that should literally void documents or cause defective products to be recalled.
View original post 1,777 more words
