Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by L on February 6, 2010 at 5:13pm

130. CALIFORNIA NOTICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS REMOVAL v BANK OF AMERICA AURORA I DIAZ 12-10-09-BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER http://ning.it/7NO3ee

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by L on February 16, 2010 at 5:04pm

California,

Listen Up!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by L on March 2, 2010 at 6:50am

Brian Davies' :BLOG

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by L on March 24, 2010 at 9:55pm

Foreclosure Case Killer!- An Allonge Is Not Admissable Evidence of Bank’s Ownership ghttp://ning.it/crOveP

Allonge (n)- A clever way for pretender lenders to fabricate “proof” of ownership in order to foreclose http://ning.it/9DksaD

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by L on March 24, 2010 at 9:56pm

California, more info!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by L on May 21, 2010 at 9:54am

May 20, 2010 CA BK Court Opinion http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Walker+Or...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by L on May 26, 2010 at 4:55pm

May 20, 2010 Excellent CA Bankruptcy Case Decision! http://ning.it/97zxNF

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by L on May 27, 2010 at 6:45am

CA BK Walker Case May 2010

Attachments:

• CABK mersdecision-5-20-10.pdf, 163 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by L on May 30, 2010 at 12:13am

CA Emergency Declaration for Injunctive, Declaratory Relief and Stay of Foreclosure Sale http://ning.it/aGGHpx

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by L on May 30, 2010 at 12:16am

CA Order to show just cause for preliminary injunction http://ning.it/9XJ8In

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by L on May 30, 2010 at 1:26am

From an anonymous Californian:

"California Reconveyance is suspect for the following reasons
The notice of default usually says they are either the trustee or the
agent of the trustee. This is an admission that they don’t know who
they are, which makes the notice default potentially defective for
this and several other reasons. If they were the agent of the trustee,
then where is the power of attorney? It certainly isn’t recorded, so
the notice of default is defective unless California Reconveyance is
the Trustee.
It can’t be the Trustee unless it is appointed by an authorized party
and the recording of the substitution predates the notice of default.
The authorized party must be truly authorized and not a party with
APPARENT authority because the authority must be executed in properly
recordable form and then recorded PRIOR to the notice of the default.
Why was California reconveyance used at all? There already was a trustee.
Does California Reconveyance qualify as a Trustee under California law?
In all the cases I have seen, the assignment is dated long after the
PSA was executed. If there was a close-out time (which there usually
is) then the assignment might have been offered but by the terms of
the PSA it wasn’t accepted because it couldn’t be accepted.
If there was an additional document(s) allowing the transfer, then
that should have been recorded as well. But there couldn’t be such a
document because
The pool ONLY accepts assignments of performing mortgages, not
mortgages that are in default. Therefore it would be a direct
violation of the PSA and Prospectus to put in a non-performing loan.
Hence, again, the assignment may have been offered and might look good
on its face, but it must be taken as only part of the securitization
documents that create the securitization structure.
A claim of acceptance might be expected from the “Trustee” (whom we
have already identified as not having any Trustee powers or duties in
real life). This claim is an admission that the Trustee has violated
the terms of the securitization document that put him in that
position.
At least one judge expressed the opinion that these are matters
between the creditors and do not affect either the borrower’s
obligation nor the ability of some creditor possessing some aspect of
credibility to foreclose on the home. This opinion should be met with
a compelling argument: “Ordinarily I would agree your honor that these
are mere technicalities that do not affect the obligation nor the
ability to enforce it. I would also ordinarily agree that if the wrong
party brings the action, then they might have some liability to some
other creditor with a colorable claim. But here we have something
different: legally the assignment was neither authorized to be made or
accepted which means that there is a high probability that the loan is
still owned by other parties and could very well have been assigned or
will be assigned into a new pool of resecuritized assets. This leaves
the borrower with financial double jeopardy. Perhaps worse than that
we are compounding an already clouded title situation.In your effort
to prevent the borrower from getting a free house, you are giving a
free house to someone else who neither has any right to it nor do they
represent anyone who does. Therefore it is a question of fact that
must be heard on its merits, after an opportunity to conduct discovery
(a) the identity of the actual creditor (b) the true balance of the
obligation after allocation of third party payments and (c0 the true
status of the loan and whether there ever was a default after
allocation of the third party payments being applied in accordance
with the terms of the note and Deed of Trust.
The UCC provides that a transfer of a loan in default might not be
perfected. It may also be evidence of splitting the note and mortgage.
(Deed of Trust)"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by L on July 11, 2010 at 3:11pm

California Superior Court Rules on Discovery -Forces the Trust to Produce - Pooling and Servicing Agreement http://ning.it/9idIMd

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page