moretrouble
LoanSafe Member
Attached is the complaint from HBK Capital Management (another hedge fund). I've forwarded my complaint to the Quinn Em attorneys of the case. The complaint explains how NewRez makes its money.
Bagels at a Bar mitzvah Part II
- Thread starter isisis
- Start date
Survivor_IN
LoanSafe Member
If a trust is terminated, can they still sue in the name of the trust? what if they do? I have no faith that even half these foreclosure lawsuits are in the name of the real party in interest. I would not trust DB to not be getting a cut off the top either.
kraftykrab
LoanSafe Member
I would have to say no. US Bank got itself into a mess with the case US Bank v. Decision One. In that case, the issue was that they could not prove assignment from Decision One when that company no longer existed and no assignment had been made on paper prior to Decision One going out of business.
Decision One folded in 2007. Yet, miraculously (LOLZ), US Bank had an assignment from MERS as nominee for Decision One that was dated in 2012. Here's the court's decision when USB tried to get a default judgment--imagine this.....D-One goes out of business in 2007. USB tried to sue them in 2016, and when they didn't answer the suit--of course, because they haven't even existed for 9 years at that point--USB tried to get a default judgment.
U.S. Bank National Association v. Decision One Mortgage Company
U.S. Bank National Association v. Decision One Mortgage Company
"The Court questions the validity of the Assignment in question. The Assignment.was executed on March 13, 2012. Decision One Mortgage Company, LLC was dissolved on September 21, 2007. Because Decision One Mortgage Company, LLC no longer existed at the time of the Assignment the Court finds that any assignment made by MERS on behalf of Decision One Mortgage Company, LLC was invalid."
Final ruling:
"Finally, even if the Assignment had been valid, and even if the Court found that a declaration of whether Plaintiff does, in fact, own the mortgage would remove uncertainty, the Court would be obligated to set hearing to determine the truth of Plaintiff's assertion of ownership.
III. Conclusion
Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is denied."
If you consider that a defunct company that no longer exists cannot be a valid defendant in a suit, it stands to reason that a trust that is defunct and no longer exists cannot be a valid plaintiff. I would consult your state's case law on issues of standing. I can tell you that in my state, there's a weird law that permits an original plaintiff to stay on as plaintiff even after it sells off all interest in a note and mortgage--the plaintiff is not required to sub in the "real" party in interest as plaintiff unless the court orders it so. So, you could be a defendant facing that original lender for years and not even know that they no longer have standing as it's defined by law. How do you defend against a suit when you don't even know who the real party is supposed to be? Yet, it's allowed here. BUT, what's NOT allowed here is for a plaintiff to file suit when they did not have standing at the time of filing. It's not allowed, but you must affirmatively assert the defense of lack of standing. The court isnt going to do it for you, as we all know.
See Above screenshot of US BANK Trust Report. …..
See Terminated Date. ….
I don’t see how it is possible for
US Bank N.A. Trustee for 510 Asset Backed NPL-2 to be the Plaintiff in any Fraudclosure Complaint !!!!
(And yet somehow they still Are ???)
moretrouble
LoanSafe Member
I would not be surprised if the complaint is actually initiated by the master servicer, they just use the trust name to make it look legitimate. U s Bank is the trustee for many of the recovery trusts from NewRez temporarily holding titles after the sales before they exercise the call rights and realizing profits from the purported foreclosures. You can file a request for production to find out. It is a misrepresentation if they do. Sue us bank as trustee for aiding and abetting fraud. I found out the 1.7 million dolllar home foreclosed in the name of the same trust RAAC 2005 RP3 was not even in the trust according to the loan schedule.
kraftykrab
LoanSafe Member
I'll do you one better.....IS US Bank Trust really the trustee? Who is the real trustee?? Here's some interesting new info.....
If you go to the clerk of court's website for Ramsey County, MN's Second District Court, and look up civil case # 62-TR-CV-17-12, You're gonna find something very interesting. There's a 939 page document, filed by petitioner "U.S. Bank, National Association". In this document, which is titled, " PETITION OF U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE, FOR INSTRUCTIONS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF CERTAIN TRUSTS PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. § 501C.0202 ", U.S. Bank, N.A. declares ITSELF to be the trustee for over 5,000 different trusts....
So, what's so special about this list? It contains a ton of trusts that U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. claims to be trustee for. Problem? You betcha. See, USB and USBT are two completely separate entities. They each have their own charter number with the USG. They each have their own IRS employer ID number. They each have their own separate HQ's and principal places of business--in two different states. Both companies fall under the US Bancorp umbrella but each is a distinct and separate subsidiary of US Bancorp. This means they are NOT interchangeable as trustee, nor are they interchangeable as a named petitioner in a court of law for a foreclosure case.
Among the trusts that USBT has falsely allowed its name to be used as "trustee" are basically all of the Vericrest trusts, the Lone Star Funds trusts like LSF8, LSF9 and so on....and a ton more. The timing is interesting on this--I just quite recently discovered it myself but this was actually filed in that court in March, 2017. In my own case, I've been told since June 2014, all the way up to today, with no breaks in between, that USBT was always the trustee that was involved with this LSF8 mess. We all know that USBT has sold its name for years now to be used as trustee, and has done so with a rather interesting way to cover its butt. The LPOA that they use clearly states that if any servicer brings negative attention their way as a result of this "arrangement", that they do not do so in any official capacity representing USBT. In other words, if they get caught lying, the servicer alone is on the hook and agrees to hold USBT harmless for any results of them using the USBT name.
For anyone who's dealing with US Bank or USBT as a supposed trustee, feel free to message me with the name of the trust and I will check the list for you to see if your trust is involved in this. Like I said, it's over 5,000 trusts, y'all....
And here's a reminder--as soon as I can locate the case I'll post it here. A foreclosure attorney went all the way to trial in a foreclosure case, stating at all relevant times that U.S. Bank was his client in the foreclosure--I'm almost positive it was USB, but it may have been another like BofA. When the trial had concluded, the judge ruled in favor of the homeowners. As such, the judge awarded over $100K to the homeowners to reimburse them for their legal fees and court costs in the action. It was only then that this attorney stood up and informed the judge that any such award would be unjust, because US Bank was never his actual client--only the servicer was. The judge then ruled that the lawyer himself/his firm would be on the hook for the $100K as a result of willful misrepresentation both to the court and to the homeowners. So remember this--if you can show that the attornies against you have indeed made this kind of false claim, it's not a small deal.
please look up to the 2 below if possible. We were told both are the “Creditor”.
But #1 is the Plaintiff. And #2 ”economically reaps the benefits” !!!!
1. US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE FOR TRUMAN 2016 SC6 TITLE TRUST
2. US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE FOR 510 ASSET BACKED 2021 NPL-2
kraftykrab
LoanSafe Member
Sending you a message--better yet, can you send me one? Looks like I cannot send you a message.
I don’t seem to be able to message you here I either , although I do follow you ???
I did send a request to your email address that you have listed here if that works well for you.
Survivor_IN
LoanSafe Member
What's in a name?
Deutsche Bank is still filing POA's that contradict is "formerly known as" entities... Mind you as recently as 2022. These POAs are copied and reproduced (from other States ) and re-riled ENDLESSLY with such erroneous language leaving significant doubt as to the authenticy of the documents and legal contradictions as to whom the actual servicer is (and trustee name too) containing the right to act on the loans.
I'm going through my files on this evidence. Ocwen has fought tooth and nail to avoid additional evidence arguments *after* it presented "a Note" which contradicts the PSA by not including the requisite signatures. Their 'argument' consists of "so what? I can take this action anyway!" using the either/or option of the UCC language on note possessions and rights. Mind you, they have no evidence that they even held the note at the time of filing the complaint as the "note" attached was not endorsed.
Ocwen's foreclosure mill simply added it's own endorsement directly into the trust 10 years after the fact.
Survivor_IN
LoanSafe Member
I think there is an argument to be made on suing someone without identification. In spite of being able to sue on behalf of an investor, this is material information as to the legitimacy of the action. I think anyone defending such has a right to this and that these irregular and erroneous assertions of "party entitiled" should not be allowed to legally hide behind ANY law. It just invites fraud and theft. Material to borrower and actual owner of debt. So what if the plaintiff proffers a bond against third party claims? If they don't have rights then this is a liscence to steal based on "we got money honey."
Survivor_IN
LoanSafe Member
Correction! - These are being filed by the servicer. Oxen and PH using contradictory data, my loan in one but not the other. lol The language used contains an expressed "disclaimer" that it is effective until "expressly revoked" and where one POA does in fact revoke the other and places the POA with a non-existent entity.
Must not standing be established and maintained through out the entirety of the lawsuit? Not just at incelption? There has never been any transfer of new entity. It really looks like this note has been open to trading during this time due to NOT being transfered into the trust until a substantially later date. I think they feel that they can keep this out of the lawsuit and just make the transfers off the books until after the final judgment has been obtained and collected.
Must not standing be established and maintained through out the entirety of the lawsuit? Not just at incelption? There has never been any transfer of new entity. It really looks like this note has been open to trading during this time due to NOT being transfered into the trust until a substantially later date. I think they feel that they can keep this out of the lawsuit and just make the transfers off the books until after the final judgment has been obtained and collected.
kraftykrab
LoanSafe Member
Of course they are--but they are doing it because...
1--far too many people when sued for foreclosure do not fight back because they know they didnt make the payments, so they don't ever bother to look and see if the suit against them is flawed like this or not.
2--of the few that DO fight, they typically lose on procedural grounds, meaning even if they have evidence of wrongdoing, the courts will rule against them when they violate procedural requirements. It's not enough to know they did wrong, it must be proveable using admissible evidence, and correct procedure. That's where most homeowners who fight back lose.
3--even then, of the VERY few who do fight back and who try to learn procedure, this info is well hidden so that someone on the foreclosing side needs to slip up or that homeowner needs to so fully devote themselves to researching that they can find the contradictions.
Remember this--there are MANY cases in states with the "possession of the note at time of filing" requirement in their laws that the homeowners win. It happens frequently enough in Florida, I believe New York may be another one. If the plaintiff cannot, for any reason, show evidence that they held the note at the time the suit was filed, it is supposed to be game over in those states and I've seen plenty where that is the case.
Regarding POAs, this is VERY important---ANY TIME you are given a document that references other agreements, you MUST pursue those other agreements as well. For example, this is part of a POA that I found in my recent research--bold emphasis is mine:
"In addition to the indemnification provisions set forth in the applicable servicing or management agreements for the Trust, the Servicer hereby agrees as applicable to indemnify and hold the Trustee, its directors, officers, employees and agents harmless from and against any and all liabilities, obligations and damages of any kind whatsoever incurredby reason or result of this agreement's use."
ANY time that ANY other agreement is mentioned in a POA, fight to get that one as well. Do NOT let the opposing attorney try to say it's not relevant, because at that point they are testifying with no evidence to back their claim up. Have they even ever seen those agreements? Ever read them? Most likely not. They just do not want to produce anything more than they can get away with. Why does this matter? Simple---because in the example I listed above, that's a SERVICING agreement. You ABSOLUTELY want that before the court. In many cases, it would be so heavily redacted because what it contains will harm their case and show their claims to be a lie.
Bill Pataalo discusses some of this regarding ancillary agreements here: