Cashmere v. State of Washington Dept of Revenue: Recent REMIC case in Washington

They didn’t even assign the financial assets – makes sense to me. Hopefully, Judges are starting to see the light.

Justice League

This is a Sept 25, 2014, Washington State supreme court ruling on REMIC taxes not exempt because Cashmere did not receive any interest in mortgages or deeds of trust to back its investment.

Cashmere v. Dept of Revenue (PDF)

Michael Gamsky testified that REMIC investments are not secured transactions because issuers do not pledge any property as security for the investments. He explained that investors who purchase REMIC certificates are beneficiaries of a trust and they have contractual rights under the pooling and servicing agreement, but they are not secured investors.

After reviewing the evidence, the superior court granted summary judgment to DOR. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Cashmere’s investments were not primarily secured by first mortgages or deeds of trust because Cashmere had no power to institute foreclosure proceedings. Cashmere Valley Bank, 175 Wn. App. at 418. Thus, the bank’s investments were not secured and the deduction…

View original post 46 more words


One thought on “Cashmere v. State of Washington Dept of Revenue: Recent REMIC case in Washington

  1. This is getting ridiculous. All the cases addressing complicated REMIC issues, but everyone is ignoring the most basic. The Borrowers apply for loans to purchase homes. Not 1 of them is told what the true intention of the Bank is, or that the loan is not a loan but a securities investment. The only reason securitization is hid from the Borrowers is because they know the Borrower would never agree. Isn’t that the very purpose of contract law? To keep that exact wrong from happening? The Banks force people into default on purpose to collect all that insurance by claiming breach of agreement.

    If the Banks intentions to run that scam are before Borrowers even applies for a loan. That’s evidenced by the REMIC trusts formed are months before. That means the loans agreements are being breached before a Borrowers loan even closes. The loan agreements could never be valid. Screw arguing REMICs, that’s just Basic Contract Law 101. People need to stop trying argue meaningless issues because nothing after the breach is legal or valid anyway.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s