Why Foreclosing Securitized Trust Plaintiffs Cannot Prove Entitlement To Foreclose

(December 12, 2017, Hawaii) The Foreclosure Hour TODAY at 3 pm (HST) / (5 pm EST) will discuss one of Hawaii’s latest FORECLOSURE APPEAL cases, HSBC Bank USA v. Yamashita, where after a pro-bank decision in the lower circuit court was overturned on appeal.

The Hawaii ICA noted, “[T]he [Hawaii] supreme court then expressed that “[a] foreclosing plaintiff’s burden to prove entitlement to enforce the note overlaps with the requirements of standing in foreclosure actions as ‘standing is concerned with whether the parties have the right to bring suit.'” Continue reading


Trouble in Paradise — Maui Foreclosures Allowed Without Proof of Standing or Full HRS §667-17 Compliance


See: KingCast and Mortgage Movies

“Truth crushed to Earth shall rise again, the eternal years of God are hers, but Error wounded writhes in pain and dies among His worshipers.”  The Battle Field – William Cullen Bryant. 1794–1878 Continue reading

REMIC Armageddon on the Horizon?

explosionIt’s about time somebody recognized it.   and Brad Bordon posted a dynamic review of the most recent ‘slap down the banks’ cases of Saldivar and Erobobo and the potential impact on the [failed] REMIC tax shelters in REFinBlog.

David Reiss writes: “Brad Borden and I have warned that an unanticipated tax consequence of the sloppy mortgage origination practices that characterized the boom is that MBS pools may fail to qualify as REMICs.  This would have massively negative tax consequences for MBS investors and should trigger lawsuits against the professionals who structured these transactions. Courts deciding upstream and downstream cases have not focused on this issue because it is typically not relevant to the dispute between the parties. Continue reading


MERS 3-STOOGESA landmark decision was made this week in Culhane v. Aurora in the United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit without a complete set of facts set out before what  appears to be its clueless judges.

The case decision, an APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS was to some degree based on the merits of standing answering the question: “Whether a mortgagor has standing to challenge the assignment of her mortgage — an assignment to which she is not a party and of which she is not a third-party beneficiary — is a matter of first impression for this court.” Continue reading