Bagels at a Bar mitzvah Part II

S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
I'm also wondering about NR being Master Servicer and basically pimping out all the work. It looks like maybe NR as MS may have bought these or be holding or own some as a part of their investment portfolio (versus just servicing portfolio).
 
E

Elle

LoanSafe Member
kraftykrab said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hi All,

Still here. I have a new substituted Plaintiff in my 11-1/2 year old fraudclosure:

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS OWNER TRUSTEE OF NEW
RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2020-NPL2,

However, the AOM says US BANK TRUST. Court sees the discrepancy and points it out to Plaintiff Banksters. Haven't heard back from them since. See attached:
 

Attachments

K

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Elle said:
Hi All,

Still here. I have a new substituted Plaintiff in my 11-1/2 year old fraudclosure:

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS OWNER TRUSTEE OF NEW
RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2020-NPL2,

However, the AOM says US BANK TRUST. Court sees the discrepancy and points it out to Plaintiff Banksters. Haven't heard back from them since. See attached:
Click to expand...
That trust does not show up in the big list that I have, but the list is not intended to be a complete listing of their trusts. But I can tell you this--they are doing the same double dipping nonsense that we're seeing in a lot of places now. Example--scroll down to Sale 15:


"U.S. BANK NATION ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL
CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS TRUSTEE OF THE NEW RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2020-NPL2"

And then:

unicourt.com

U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS OWNER TRUSTEE OF NEW RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2020-NPL2 vs. WALDO VALLE A/K/A WALDO G. VALLE et al

On 06/02/2021 U S BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS OWNER TRUSTEE OF NEW RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2020-NPL2 filed a Property - Foreclosure court case against WALDO VALLE A/K/A WALDO G VALLE in Suffolk County Courts. Court records for this case...
unicourt.com unicourt.com

"U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS OWNER TRUSTEE OF NEW RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2020-NPL2 vs. WALDO VALLE A/K/A WALDO G. VALLE et al"

Understand this--the two links above are evidence of fraud. Both of these foreclosure suits were pending in courts in 2021. So, when a trust can only have one trustee at any given time, someone please explain to us how both US Bank, N.A. and US Bank Trust, N.A. can be identified as trustee of the same trust at the same time.

US Bank is among the oldest national banks in the country--Abraham Lincoln signed their charter approval, #24, in 1863. US Bank N.A.'s IRS employer number is 31-0841368.

US Bank Trust, N.A.'s charter number is 24090, and their IRS employer # is 41-1973763. USBT began in 1903. USBT has a different HQ/principal place of business, in a different state than that of US Bank, N.A. These are clearly two separate and distinct entities, and cannot be interchanged back and forth--either as a trustee of a trust, or as plaintiff trustee in a foreclosure suit. Yet, here we are.

Most of us by now have heard of LSF8 Master Participation Trust, or LSF9, LSF10, LSF11, etc etc. Ever since first hearing of these trusts, it has been claimed that US Bank Trust, N.A. was the trustee. However....

Lexis® - Sign In | LexisNexis

LexisNexis users sign in here. Click here to login and begin conducting your legal research now.
advance.lexis.com

Search this one:

ABFC 2006-HE1, AND THE TRUSTS IDENTIFIED ON EXHIBIT 1 ATTACHED HERETO, Second District Court, Ramsey County, MN (Case # 62-TR-CV-17-12)

US Bank, N.A., has declared that it, not US Bank Trust, N.A., is the trustee for these and over 5,000 others. I have not searched them all, but of the ones I searched, ALL of them show both USBNA and USBTNA as trustee in various foreclosure suits. This is legal fiction, as the trustee CAN change, they CAN swap in one trustee to replace the old one. But they cannot both be operating as the trustee for any given trust at the same time.
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
Elle said:
Hi All,

Still here. I have a new substituted Plaintiff in my 11-1/2 year old fraudclosure:

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS OWNER TRUSTEE OF NEW
RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2020-NPL2,

However, the AOM says US BANK TRUST. Court sees the discrepancy and points it out to Plaintiff Banksters. Haven't heard back from them since. See attached:
Click to expand...
I'm beginning to wonder if the "new" trusts and transfers are the result of selling off part and parcels of the original trusts to the servicers? This might explain some things. New Rez appears to be performing this "break apart" service. The loans are going to collection investors when they go to the serviciers as owner. IMHO
 
K

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Survivor_IN said:
Just an FYI, arguing the error (in the owner or lender's names) has its hazards, especially pro se.
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate? This argument goes to standing. If the named party has no standing, there's no defense against that. A party with no standing leaves only one option for the court--and that is dismissal.

Standing is required. If a plaintiff has no standing, it cannot be used as a sort of place holder for the real party in interest to suddenly show up later and sub in.
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
kraftykrab said:
Can you elaborate? This argument goes to standing. If the named party has no standing, there's no defense against that. A party with no standing leaves only one option for the court--and that is dismissal.

Standing is required. If a plaintiff has no standing, it cannot be used as a sort of place holder for the real party in interest to suddenly show up later and sub in.
Click to expand...
There is a verbiage used in various MERS loans. These declarations may or may not succeed in court. In some MERS loans, there are certain clauses that are not used in other contracts. Using MERs to transfer an assignment for a non-existent (or bankrupt and closed) entity is the question. Is their a legal right to conduct business once you die? It is also a question of, how can this trust be suing me if there is no proof this loan has been transferred into any actual trust owned by this particular trustee?
 
C

cookiemom

LoanSafe Member
Next move? With NewRez placing my foreclosure date on "hold" what should be my response. Another QWR? They still never fully provided the full information I've formally requested over the years. Should I wait for them to make tge next move again?

Also, seeking cases where it was agreed that a bk discharge accelerates a heloc
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
I've recently found certain tactics used in litigation that create traps for the weary. Endless litigation is one of them. In lieu of "finality" the party uses the non-final answer (dismissal or withdrawal) and holds on to the right to continue the case indefinitely because there is not final ruling for an appeal. One solution was to present the option to agree to hold the right to refile upon dismissal. (dismissal without prejudice to refile) Another is to agree to have the judge declare the ruling is final. (making ruling appealable) - I'm not sure how this works in practice. The practice definitely favors those with very long SOLs.
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
The reference above allows a lender to absolve itself from the argument that they have lost based on a ruling "on the merits" as no final ruling has ever been taken. Leaves a nice little trap for attorneys to withdraw their losing arguments and take multiple bites at the apple.
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
There is a silver lining to having your home officially foreclosed. You now have an action for wrongful foreclosure. There are so many post-foreclosure motions to be had...
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
The Texas Sharpshooter (Clustering Illusion)
This cleverly named logical fallacy is based on a shooter who fires away at the side of a barn and then paints a bullseye around the cluster of the most bullet holes, ignoring those that fall outside the target area. In court, this occurs when a party focuses only on the evidence that supports their position, ignoring all the contradictory evidence. Identify, expose, and confront this fallacy.

Your expert can help identify when the defense expert has cherry-picked the data and only talked about the results that support the defense’s theory. Have your expert testify as to how, having seen all of the data, it’s clear that the defense expert’s opinion is based on incomplete and biased information.

Your cross-examination of a defense physician expert relying on this fallacy may look something like this:

Q: “Now doctor, as a scientist you want to know all the available information?”
A: “That’s correct.”
Q: “It is unfair and dishonest if a physician hired by a defendant only reports the physical findings that support the defendant?”
A: “I agree.”
Q: “Let’s review all the findings in this case, including those that don’t support the defense arguments.”
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
Ocwen settlement. A small victory. :)

You have a chance to receive or register objection to the settlement. You can no longer remove yourself. I'm gonna have to review this and register objection to ensure it is narrowly focused on the specific fraud. I'm not wanting them to achieve any legal benefits when they write this one off in an approved settlement. BPOs are typically part of the FC's junk fees.

Borrowers who have or had a loan serviced by Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and paid for Broker Price Opinions or Hybrid Valuations between 2010 and 2017, may be entitled to the benefits of a class action settlement. Estimated payments are $60 per Broker Price Opinion and $70 per Hybrid Valuation

Borrowers who have or had a loan serviced by Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and paid for Broker Price Opinions or Hybrid Valuations between 2010 and 2017, may be entitled to the benefits of a class action settlement. Estimated payments are $60 per Broker Price Opinion and $70 per Hybrid Valuation.

/PRNewswire/ -- A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit called Weiner v. Ocwen Financial Corp., Case No. Case No. 14-cv-02597, (E.D....
www.prnewswire.com www.prnewswire.com

What are my options?

Class Members can file a claim, request exclusion, object, or do nothing.

  • File a Claim. To receive a payment from the Settlement, submit a valid claim electronically at www.OcwenFeeSettlement.com or postmarked by September 29, 2025. By submitting a claim, you give up your right to sue or continue to sue Defendants for the claims in this case.
  • Request Exclusion. To remove yourself from the Settlement ("opt out"), submit an exclusion request by July 12, 2024. If you exclude yourself, you will receive no payment from the Settlement, but this is the only option that will allow you to keep your right to sue or continue to sue Defendants for the claims in this case.
  • Object. If you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement, you may object or tell the Court what you do not like about the Settlement. If you object, you must still submit a claim to receive a payment. Objections must be submitted by July 12, 2024.
  • Do Nothing. If you do nothing, you will receive no paym
 
S

Survivor_IN

LoanSafe Member
Errors on appeal.
There are so many and so many different types of errors.
What is plain error, structural error, and why does it matter on appeal?

I have reviewed some recent cases that were lost on appeal and prior arguments and defenses have now been weakened in some respects. For example, in some jurisdictions, the lack of notice is a moot point if they proved they mailed it. So, some technical deficiencies are overlooked as non-prejudicial. The found loophole is that the notes tend to only provide for mailing to address on file. If that's done and you don't read it then that's your doing. The courts are writing some of these off because the notes only require mailing but don't require receipt! There has to be something more substantial in the 'failure of conditions precedent' or the judge will consider it harmless. (but not the same in judicial as screwing over CA residents in DOT)

I haven't seen any lender win on more substantial hearsay claims without being at least challenged. I'm reviewing and seeing that my lender has suddenly developed a case of "clerical error" on their fatal flaws. Talk about hallucinating. lol. Can you imagine an appeal court affirming something like that? I'm not feeling the love for establishing "standing by hearsay" but you never know in today's climate.

The more you look the more you find. :)
The Plain Error of Cause and Prejudice (36pps)
A PRIMER ON PREJUDICIAL ERROR: THE APPLICABLE TESTS AND HOW TO SATISFY THEM (36pps)
MITCHELL J. STEIN, Petitioner, v. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,39pps
 
J

Javagold

LoanSafe Member
Survivor_IN said:
Errors on appeal.
There are so many and so many different types of errors.
What is plain error, structural error, and why does it matter on appeal?

I have reviewed some recent cases that were lost on appeal and prior arguments and defenses have now been weakened in some respects. For example, in some jurisdictions, the lack of notice is a moot point if they proved they mailed it. So, some technical deficiencies are overlooked as non-prejudicial. The found loophole is that the notes tend to only provide for mailing to address on file. If that's done and you don't read it then that's your doing. The courts are writing some of these off because the notes only require mailing but don't require receipt! There has to be something more substantial in the 'failure of conditions precedent' or the judge will consider it harmless. (but not the same in judicial as screwing over CA residents in DOT)

I haven't seen any lender win on more substantial hearsay claims without being at least challenged. I'm reviewing and seeing that my lender has suddenly developed a case of "clerical error" on their fatal flaws. Talk about hallucinating. lol. Can you imagine an appeal court affirming something like that? I'm not feeling the love for establishing "standing by hearsay" but you never know in today's climate.

The more you look the more you find. :)
The Plain Error of Cause and Prejudice (36pps)
A PRIMER ON PREJUDICIAL ERROR: THE APPLICABLE TESTS AND HOW TO SATISFY THEM (36pps)
MITCHELL J. STEIN, Petitioner, v. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,39pps
Click to expand...

Lender did not comply with statutory requirements of NJSA 2A:50-56 4.a - which states: “BEFORE any residential mortgage lender may accelerate the maturity of any residential mortgage obligation ... the residential lender shall give a notice of intention” (emphasis added). By Rushmore Servicing Statement, the alleged loan was accelerated on November 20, 2023, and therefore the Notice of Intent (NOI), sent on November 21, 2023, see EXHIBIT ONE, should be deemed invalid under NJSA 2A:50-56 4.a.


and the Judge completely ignored this statutory requirement that is in Black & White. Ridiculous!!!
1st will be a Motion for Reconsideration.
2nd will be Appeal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top