For people dealing with foreclosure issues:
I know this is all fairly technical legal mumbo jumbo, but both of these site include the actual ruling from the courts and both of these cases are excellent precedent setting for people trying to stop foreclosures.
First case says the bank MUST provide true original documents
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/201...-system-multiple-true-correct-copies-of-note/
Second is more technical but catches (helps) those homeowners who themselves breeched the contract by failure to pay. Other rulings had to happen prior to an actual default. Even though they breeched the contract this court says the level of irregularities on the part of the bank is forcing him to demand that the bank demonstrate that the title was transfered to a specific entity not just a trust. It is all but legal hairsplitting, but the judge is using it to forestall the bank from getting gains from previously committed fraud (OK those are my words, but its pretty close to what he actually says.)
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011...decision-raises-new-chain-of-title-issue.html
The North Carolina judges blew a hole in that theory. This particular foreclosure had some of the irregularities that are all too common, but the borrowers were deemed to have abandoned the related arguments. However, the judge focused on a specific failure in this deal which is pervasive in securitizations: the final endorsement was to the trustee, not the particular trust. The judges in the case goes through multiple deficiencies in the transfer process: some transfers were made by parties that did not have clear authority to do so, the affidavits were unreliable (as in they were in some cases non-factual and separately made inappropriate conclusions of law), and there was no evidence provided that the securitization trust was the owner and holder of the note (as in the not exactly compelling endorsements ending with a trustee and not a particular trust were inadequate). The most important part was this statement:
the Allonge in the record contains no indorsement to Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee for Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. Series 2006-QA6
Few courts have questioned whether the final endorsement needs to be to the trust rather than the trustee; weve argued that that is necessary because the trusts elect to be governed by New York law and case law has long stipulated that endorsement to a particular trust is necessary. Interestingly, the North Carolina judges came to a similar conclusion independently. We expect this argument to be made in other courts. Given that endorsement to a specific trust seems to be very rare, this could prove to be a potent argument.
These are both worth a try. The more families that win on these types of cases the more judges will decide this way.....
I know this is all fairly technical legal mumbo jumbo, but both of these site include the actual ruling from the courts and both of these cases are excellent precedent setting for people trying to stop foreclosures.
First case says the bank MUST provide true original documents
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/201...-system-multiple-true-correct-copies-of-note/
Second is more technical but catches (helps) those homeowners who themselves breeched the contract by failure to pay. Other rulings had to happen prior to an actual default. Even though they breeched the contract this court says the level of irregularities on the part of the bank is forcing him to demand that the bank demonstrate that the title was transfered to a specific entity not just a trust. It is all but legal hairsplitting, but the judge is using it to forestall the bank from getting gains from previously committed fraud (OK those are my words, but its pretty close to what he actually says.)
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011...decision-raises-new-chain-of-title-issue.html
The North Carolina judges blew a hole in that theory. This particular foreclosure had some of the irregularities that are all too common, but the borrowers were deemed to have abandoned the related arguments. However, the judge focused on a specific failure in this deal which is pervasive in securitizations: the final endorsement was to the trustee, not the particular trust. The judges in the case goes through multiple deficiencies in the transfer process: some transfers were made by parties that did not have clear authority to do so, the affidavits were unreliable (as in they were in some cases non-factual and separately made inappropriate conclusions of law), and there was no evidence provided that the securitization trust was the owner and holder of the note (as in the not exactly compelling endorsements ending with a trustee and not a particular trust were inadequate). The most important part was this statement:
the Allonge in the record contains no indorsement to Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee for Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. Series 2006-QA6
Few courts have questioned whether the final endorsement needs to be to the trust rather than the trustee; weve argued that that is necessary because the trusts elect to be governed by New York law and case law has long stipulated that endorsement to a particular trust is necessary. Interestingly, the North Carolina judges came to a similar conclusion independently. We expect this argument to be made in other courts. Given that endorsement to a specific trust seems to be very rare, this could prove to be a potent argument.
These are both worth a try. The more families that win on these types of cases the more judges will decide this way.....
Last edited:
