in RE: Macklin: Deutsche Must Answer Wrongful Foreclosure and Quiet Title

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Excerpts on Wrongful Foreclosure (changed by the Judge Sargis to Breach of Contract)

… a record has been created that someone not of record title purported to take action on a Deed of Trust prior to compliance with Civil Code 2932.5.

The court will not sanction conduct by this Defendant which puts into question the validity of the nonjudicial foreclosure process and California real property records.  Though this issue could have been simply addressed by the recording of a new notice of default months ago, the ninety days under the new notice of default allowed to run and this creditor be on the door step of conducting a nonjudicial foreclosure sale consistent with the California statutes, it has elected to continue with the existing notice of default, subsequent substitution of trustee, and sale.

The contract between the parties is the Note and Deed of Trust.

Excerpt on Quiet Title

Though not artfully done, Macklin sufficiently explains that he asserts superior title to the Property over the Trustee’s Deed through which DBNTC asserts its interest in the Property.  Given that Macklin has asserted that DBNTC cannot show that it complied with the minimal requirements for properly conducting a nonjudicial foreclosure sale, the motion to dismiss the Tenth Cause of Action is denied.

Download order here:  http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Macklin-222-Order.pdf

Download memorandum opinion and decision (part 1) here:  http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Macklin-221-Memorandum_Opinion_and_Decision_Part1.pdf

Download memorandum opinion and decision (part 2) here:  http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Macklin-221-Memorandum_Opinion_and_Decision_Part2.pdf

State of Missouri 136 Count Indictment – 68 Class C Felonies for Forgery and 68 Class B Misdemeanors for False Declarations

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thanks to Charles Cox and George Christian for locating this indictment.  Each count lists either a forgery or a misdemeanor.  DOCX LLC is named throughout the indictment.  On April 13, 2011 the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Officer of Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision issued a Cease and Desist Consent Order against Lender Processing Services, Inc., DocX, LLC and LPS Default Solutions, Inc. making the following findings:

WHEREAS, in providing document execution services to Examined Servicers, including services that facilitated completing foreclosures, LPS and its employees allegedly:

(a) Executed numerous affidavits and similar sworn statements (collectively, “Affidavits”) making various assertions, such as the ownership of the mortgage note and mortgage (or deed of trust), the amount of principal and interest due, and the fees and expenses chargeable to the borrower, in which the affiant represented that the assertions in the Affidavit were made based on personal knowledge or based on a review by the affiant of the relevant books and records, when, in many cases, they were not based on such knowledge or review. LPS executed these Affidavits on behalf of Examined Servicers knowing they would be filed in state courts and in connection with bankruptcy proceedings in federal courts;

(b) Executed assignments of mortgages containing inaccurate information pertaining to matters including the identity and location of the assignee and beneficiary and the effective date of the assignment. LPS recorded or caused to be recorded these assignments of mortgages in local land record offices, or executed them on behalf of Examined Servicers knowing they would be filed in state courts or in connection with bankruptcy proceedings in federal courts;

(c) Executed Affidavits, assignments of mortgages, and other mortgage-related documents (collectively, “Mortgage Documents”) on behalf of Examined Servicers without authority to execute the Mortgage Documents, specifically without having been duly appointed as an agent or officer of the Examined Servicers to execute documents on behalf of the Examined Servicers;

(d) Recorded or caused to be recorded in local land records offices numerous Mortgage Documents that were not properly notarized, including those not signed or affirmed in the presence of a notary, or knew that such Mortgage Documents would be filed in state and federal courts;

(e) Failed to respond in a sufficient and timely manner to the increased level of foreclosures by increasing financial, staffing, and managerial resources to ensure that LPS adequately handled the document execution services that LPS provided to Examined Servicers; and

(f) Failed to have adequate internal controls, policies and procedures, compliance, risk management, internal audit, and oversight of the document execution services that LPS provided to Examined Servicers;

WHEREAS, the practices set forth above allegedly constitute unsafe and unsound banking practices;

Download the indictment here – Part 1: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Lorraine-Brown-Indictment_Part1.pdf

Download the indictment here – Part 2: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Lorraine-Brown-Indictment_Part2.pdf

In RE Androes – World Savings Bank lien avoided in Kansas Bankruptcy in February 2008

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

In this Chapter 7 bankruptcy the trustee was able to avoid the lien from a World Savings Bank loan because the mortgage acknowledgement was missing a date.  As such the lien was never perfected.

Excerpt 1

Trustee Carl B. Davis seeks summary judgment on his complaint against debtor Mark Androes and World Savings Bank (“World Bank”).1 Trustee’s complaint seeks (1) to avoid World Bank’s mortgage on Androes’ homestead as unperfected because the acknowledgment of the debtor’s signature is undated and (2) to avoid as preferential World Bank’s lis pendens to the extent it attached to the home. World Bank filed a response to the Trustee’s motion and a counter motion for summary judgment.2 The Trustee filed a reply to World Bank’s response, which also served as his response to World Bank’s motion for summary judgment.3 World Bank filed a reply to the Trustee’s response to its motion for summary judgment.4 Debtor filed no response.

Excerpt 2

The Court finds that the failure of the certificate of notarial act to recite the date of the notarial act as required by KAN. STAT. ANN. § 53-508 renders it defective. The filed mortgage therefore does not impart constructive notice to a subsequent purchaser. The Addendum does not correct this defect. The Trustee is entitled to judgment as a matter of law avoiding World Bank’s mortgage under § 544 and preserving it for the benefit of the estate under § 550. The Court need not reach the Trustee’s preference claim.

The Clerk will schedule a one-hour evidentiary hearing in the bankruptcy case on the Trustee’s motion to show cause why World Bank should not be held in contempt for its alleged violation of the automatic stay by filing the Addendum.31 Should the Court determine that a stay violation occurred, appropriate sanctions, if any, will also be considered at that time.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Trustee’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. World Bank’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. JUDGMENT shall be entered accordingly.

View Ruling:  http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/in_RE_Androes_07-5088.pdf

New York vs the MERS Scheme

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman filed a complaint today against JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, Chase Home Finance, LLC, EMC Mortgage Corporation, Bank of America, NA, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., MERSCORP Inc., and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

Neil Garfield reports:

“The banks created the MERS system as an end-run around the property recording system, to facilitate the rapid securitization and sale of mortgages. Once the mortgages went sour, these same banks brought foreclosure proceedings en masse based on deceptive and fraudulent court submissions, seeking to take homes away from people with little regard for basic legal requirements or the rule of law,”

The lawsuit further asserts that the MERS System has effectively eliminated homeowners’ and the public’s ability to track property transfers through the traditional public records system. Instead, this information is now stored only in a private database – which is plagued with inaccuracies and errors – over which MERS and its financial institution members exercise sole control. Additional defendants include BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Chase Home Finance LLC, EMC Mortgage Corporation, and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.

The lawsuit specifically charges that the defendants have engaged in the following fraudulent and deceptive practices:

• MERS has filed over 13,000 foreclosure actions against New York homeowners listing itself as the plaintiff, but in many instances, MERS lacked the legal authority to foreclose and did not own or hold the promissory note, despite saying otherwise in court submissions.
• MERS certifying officers, including employees and agents of JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo, have repeatedly executed and submitted in court legal documents purporting to assign the mortgage and/or note to the foreclosing party. These documents contain numerous defects, including affirmative misrepresentations of fact, which render them false, deceptive, and/or invalid. These assignments were often automatically generated and “robosigned” by individuals who did not review the underlying property ownership records, confirm the documents’ accuracy, or even read the documents. These false and defective assignments often masked gaps in the chain of title and the foreclosing party’s inability to establish its authority to foreclose, and as a result have misled homeowners and the courts.
• MERS’ indiscriminate use of non-employee “certifying officers” to execute vital legal documents has confused, misled, and deceived homeowners and the courts and made it difficult to ascertain whether a party actually has the right to foreclose. MERS certifying officers have regularly executed and submitted in court mortgage assignments and other legal documents on behalf of MERS without disclosing that they are not MERS employees, but instead are employed by other entities, such as the mortgage servicer filing the case or its counsel. The signature line just indicates that the individual is an “Assistant Secretary,” “Vice President,” or other officer of MERS. Indeed, these documents often purport to assign the mortgage to the certifying officer’s own employer. Moreover, as a result of the defendants’ failure to track the designation of certifying officers and the scope of their authority to act, individuals have executed legal documents on behalf of MERS, such as mortgage assignments and loan modifications, when they were either not designated as a MERS certifying officer at the time or were not authorized to execute documents on behalf of MERS with respect to the subject loan.
• MERS and its members have deceived and misled borrowers about the importance and ramifications of MERS’ role with respect to their loan by providing inadequate disclosures.
• The MERS System is riddled with inaccuracies which make it difficult to verify the chain of title for a loan or the current note-holder, and creates confusion among stakeholders who rely on the information. In addition, as a result of these inaccuracies, MERS has filed mortgage satisfactions against the wrong property.

The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the alleged practices violate the law, as well as injunctive relief, damages for harmed homeowners, and civil penalties. The lawsuit also seeks a court order requiring defendants to take all actions necessary to cure any title defects and clear any improper liens resulting from their fraudulent and deceptive acts and practices.

Download summons and complaint:  http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/FINAL-SUMMONS-AND-COMPLAINT.pdf

In RE Miller – Colorado Bankruptcy Appeal – Deutsche Failed to Conform to UCC Requirements

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thanks to Deontos for this bankruptcy appeals decision.  In RE: Mark Stanley Miller vs. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) issues are addressed by the appeals court in this ruling.

Excerpt:

4. Deutsche Bank’s Status as “Party in Interest”

¶5 Deutsche Bank presented evidence that IndyMac had indorsed the Note in

blank. Is proof of this indorsement sufficient under the U.C.C. requirements to

establish Deutsche Bank as the successor holder of the note? As we shall see,

 it is not, because Deutsche Bank must also prove it has possession of the 

Note.

 ¶6 The U.C.C. identifies the requirements for “negotiation” of a note, that is, for

“transfer of possession . . . to a person who thereby becomes its holder.” Id.

§ 4-3-201(a). This statute provides that “if an instrument is payable to an

identified person, negotiation requires transfer of possession of the 

instrument and its indorsement by the holder.” Id. § 4-3-201(b) (emphasis 

added). The Official Commentary to section 4-3-201 explains that negotiation

 “always requires a change in possession of the instrument because nobody 

can be a holder without possessing the instrument, either directly or through 

8 We note that the 9th Circuit BAP has stated that because relief from stay is

a limited proceeding that does not ultimately determine the lender’s and debtor’s

rights, “the concern of real party in interest jurisprudence for avoiding double

payment is quite reduced” in such proceedings. Veal v. Am. Home Mortg.

Servicing, Inc. (In re Veal), 450 B.R. 897, 914 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2011). We also

note, however, that after making this statement in Veal, the 9th Circuit BAP

reversed a bankruptcy court determination granting relief from stay because the

purported holder of the note and mortgage could not produce the original note or

otherwise provide proof under state law that it was the holder of the note or a

person entitled to enforce it. See id. at 917-18

Texas Homeowner Survives Motion to Dismiss Against Bank of America

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thanks to Deontos for this ruling.  Homeowners in Texas survive motion to dismiss in Swim vs. Bank of America et. al.

Excerpt 1:

Defendants represented to Plaintiffs that they would not foreclose during the loan modification process—but they did. Therefore, since Defendants foreclosed during the loan modification process without contacting Plaintiffs to inform them that their trial modification had been rejected, Plaintiffs state a claim for breach of contract.

Excerpt 2: 

Section 392.304(a)(19) prohibits a debt collector, in debt collection or obtaining information concerning a consumer, from using a fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading representation or deceptive means to collect a debt or obtain information concerning a consumer. Plaintiffs allege BOA representatives informed Plaintiffs they had provided the required documents and that it would not foreclose during the loan modification process, that BOA and/or BAC repeatedly required documents Plaintiffs already provided, and that BAC foreclosed on the Property during the loan modification process, despite representations that it would not, because Plaintiffs allegedly did not provide documents Plaintiffs claim they provided. The Court finds that such facts state a claim under TDCPA § 392.304(a)(19), and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss this claim under that section of the TDCPA is thus DENIED.

Excerpt 3:

To recover damages for negligent misrepresentation, Plaintiffs’ damages must be separate from their damages for breach of contract.52 Plaintiffs provide general allegations of damages for the stigma of foreclosure, loss of creditworthiness, mental anguish, and value of time lost in attempting to correct Defendants’ records. However, Plaintiffs do not plead what actual damages they seek, separate from the claims for breach of contract, for the alleged negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged recoverable damages separate from the contract, and therefore that claim is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Excerpt 4:

Plaintiffs’ claim of gross negligence is based on their negligent misrepresentation and unreasonable collection efforts claims. Since Plaintiffs’ claims for negligent misrepresentation and unreasonable collection efforts are being dismissed, Plaintiffs do not state a claim for gross negligence. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ gross negligence claim based on unreasonable collection efforts is DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiffs’ gross negligence claim based on negligent misrepresentation is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Excerpt 5:

Furthermore, in a quiet title action, Plaintiffs must prove and recover on the strength of their own title, not the weakness of Freddie Mac’s title. Plaintiffs do not allege facts that would permit them to recover on the strength of their own title, and cannot demonstrate an invalid charge against the title unless they prevail on their remaining contract claim. As discussed above, Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their wrongful foreclosure theory based upon the splitting of the Note and Deed of Trust. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ trespass to try title and quiet title claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiffs may replead their trespass to try title and quiet title claims based upon the remaining breach of contract claim.

Excerpt 6: 

IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiffs’ claim under TDCPA § 392.304(a)(19). Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract based on Defendants’ waiver and split between the Note and Deed of Trust, anticipatory breach of contract, TDCPA § 392.304(a)(8), DTPA, unreasonable collection efforts, gross negligence based on unreasonable collection efforts, and declaratory judgment are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiffs’ TDCPA claims under sections 392.301(a)(8) and 392.303(a)(2), claims for negligent misrepresentation, quiet title and trespass to try title, and gross negligence based on negligent misrepresentation are DISMISSED without prejudice, subject to repleading within 30 days of the date of this Order. Plaintiffs shall file a clean and redlined version of the Amended Complaint, the latter showing all changes in the Original Petition.

SO ORDERED.
January 20, 2012.

Download ruling here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Swim_vs_Bank_of_America_et_al.pdf

Oregon Case Survives BAC Home Loan Servicing Motion to Dismiss

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thanks to Charles Cox for finding this one.  This is amazing in and of itself since my information indicates that BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP ceased to exist on 7/1/2011.

Excerpt 1:

Second, Defendants argue that the loan modification agreement is subject to the statute of frauds and Plaintiff failed to plead that the loan modification agreement was subscribed by BAC. Under Oregon’s statute of frauds, an “agreement is void unless it… is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged[.]” Or. Rev. Stat. § 41.580(1). Partial performance may, however, take a contract out of the statute of frauds. Strong v. Hall, 253 Or. 61, 70 (1969);Royer v. Gailey, 252 Or. 369, 373 (1969). Plaintiff’s allegation that BAC accepted partial payments as described under the loan modification agreement for five months is sufficient pleading at this stage to survive Defendants’ argument that the agreement failed to satisfy the statute of frauds.

Excerpt 2: 

Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff “has pleaded no facts that the so-called loan modification is supported by consideration.” Def.’s MTD at 8 n.7. Defendants may be correct that reduced payments made under an oral loan modification agreement do “not represent ‘anything other than what the plaintiff was already obligated to do under the terms of the Loan. “, Vida v. One West Bank, FSB., No. 3: 1 0-cv-987, 2010 WL 5148473 *7 (D. Or. Dec. 13,2010) (quoting Barinaga v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 749 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1173 (D. Or. 2010)).

Accordingly, if a loan modification agreement only requires the borrower to make reduced payments, it might not be supported by consideration and might be unenforceable. That is not, however, the case here. The loan modification agreement signed by Plaintiff appears to have increased the amount that Plaintiff would owe as principal on her loan. The loan modification agreement states in paragraph one that the unpaid principal balance is $253,112.61. This is approximately $17,000 more than the original loan principal. Further, this amount “may include … any past due principal payments, interest, escrow payments, fees andlor costs[.]” Dkt. #14-1, Pg. 32. Thus, while her monthly payments may have temporarily decreased under the agreement, Plaintiffs total principal owing – and, accordingly, total interest owing – increased.5  That would appear to be adequate consideration, at least at the pleading stage.

Excerpt 3:

III. CONCLUSION

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #11) is DENIED.

IT SO ORDERED

Dated this 20th day of January, 2012

Download ruling here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Sviridyuk_v_BAC_Home_Loan_Servicing.pdf

Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Against Deutsche On Two Different Cases – On the Same Day

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

From 4closurefraud.org - Attorney Phillip Taylor takes the foreclosure fight in Oklahoma to the Oklahoma Supreme Court and gets handed two favorable rulings on the same day.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company vs. Byram quote:

CONCLUSION

¶11 It is a fundamental precept of the law to expect a foreclosing party to actually be in possession of its claimed interest in the note, and have the proper supporting documentation in hand when filing suit, showing the history of the note, so that the defendant is duly apprised of the rights of the plaintiff. This is accomplished by showing the party is a holder of the instrument or a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to 12A O.S. 2001, § 3-309 or 12A O.S. 2001, § 3-418. Likewise, for the homeowners, absent adjudication on the underlying indebtedness, the dismissal cannot cancel their obligation arising from an authenticated note, or insulate them from foreclosure proceedings based on proven delinquency. See, U.S. Bank National Association v. Kimball 27 A.3d 1087, 75 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 100, 2011 VT 81 (VT 2011); and Indymac Bank, F.S.B. v. Yano-Horoski, 78 A.D.3d 895, 912 N.Y.S.2d 239 (2010).

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

Deutsche Bank National Trust vs. Brumbaugh quote:

CONCLUSION

¶12 It is a fundamental precept of the law to expect a foreclosing party to actually be in possession of its claimed interest in the note, and have the proper supporting documentation in hand when filing suit, showing the history of the note, so the defendant is duly apprised of the rights of the plaintiff. This is accomplished by establishing that the party is a holder of the instrument or a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to 12A O.S. 2001, § 3-309 or 12A O.S. 2001, § 3-418. 12A O.S. 2001, § 3-301. Likewise, for the homeowners, absent adjudication on the underlying indebtedness, the dismissal cannot cancel their obligation arising from an authenticated note, or loan modification, or insulate them from foreclosure proceedings based on proven delinquency. See, U.S. Bank National Association v. Kimball 27 A.3d 1087, 75 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 100, 2011 VT 81 (VT 2011); and Indymac Bank, F.S.B. v. Yano-Horoski, 78 A.D.3d 895, 912 N.Y.S.2d 239 (2010).

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

Download the rulings:

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company vs. Byram: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/DEUTSCHE-BANK-NATIONAL-TRUST-COMPANY-vs-Byrams.pdf

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company vs. Brumbaugh: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/DEUTSCHE-BANK-NATIONAL-TRUST-vs-Brumbaugh.pdf

Southern Essex Registry of Deeds Robo-Signers List

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The Massachusetts Southern Essex Registry of Deeds provides a list of the robo-signers identified by McDonnell Property Analytics.  The list of robo-signers is as follows:

Last First

ADAMS MURIEL
AGUILAR GREENE ANGELA
ALAGIC SANELA
ALFONSO LUISA
AL-HAMMADI WENDY ALBERTSON
ALLEN CHRISTINA
ALLEN GREG
ALLOTEY LIQUENDA
ALTMAN ROBERT
AMICO CHRISTOPHER
ANDERSON CHRISTINE
ANDERSON EARITHA
ANDERSON SCOTT
ANTONELLI ANITA
ARIAS LETICIA
BACHMAN MICALL
BACKUS DEBORAH
BAGGS LORAINE
BAGLEY BRENT
BAILEY DENISE
BAILEY KIRSTEN
BAILEY-SLYH MARTHA
BALARA LORRIANE
BALDWIN CHRISTIE
BALDWIN LISA
BANASZEWSKI MATTHEW
BARRAZA ASHLEY
BARTOW HAL
BELL LANCE
BENIO DONNA
BENIO JENNIFER
BERZ PAULA
BESE TERESA
BISCHOF MARK
BISHOP MARK
BLACKSTUN NATE
BLECHINGER TONYA
BLY BRYAN
BOLDUC LORI
BORDER TIFFANY
BRIGNAC DABORAH
BROOKS BEVERLY
BROWN CHINA
BROWN LORRAINE
BROWN TRACEY l.
BURGESS JONATHAN
BURNETT BRIAN
BURTON LINDA
BUSBY GINER
BUXTON LAURA
CARBIENER JEFFREY
CARRICO HEATHER
CARTER CHRISTINA
CASTRO VILMA
CHAPMAN CAROL
CHAPMAN DORIS
CHUA JAMES
CLARK NATASHA
CLARK VALERIE
CO DAVID
COATS KAY
CODY JOHN
COFFMAN MATTHEW
COLSTON NORIKO
COOK J.
COOK MARY
COOK WHITNEY
COOK WHITNEY K.
CORNETT CLAY
COTTRELL BETH
COTTRELL JOHN
COWEN JEFFREY
CRAWCZUN BARBARA
CRITE SHAWANNA
CROFT TOM
CURETON NIKKI
DAGGS NICOLE
DALTON MARGARET
DAWSON KIMBERLY
DHIMITRI ALISA
DIAN MIKE
DIETZ DARLINE
DIXON DIANE
DOCX
DOKO DHURATO
DUDDY KAREN
DUNNERY JOHN A.
EADS SHIRLEY
ELLER NANCY
ELLIOT KEVIN J.
ESPOSITO THERESA
FLANAGAN MELISSA
FOMBY AARON
FORBES MICHAEL
FRENCH KIM
FRIEDMAN ERIC
FUERSTENBERGER ANDREW
GAAL EVA
GAGLIONE RENE
GILLAND SHAR
GONZALES EILEEN
GORLEWSKI CATHERINE M.
GRAY TINA
GREEN LINDA
GREEN MICHELLE
GREENE ALFONZO
GREENE MICHELLE
GREENWALD JACKIE
GUERRERO IRENE
HALL ROBERT G.
HALYARD MICHELLE
HANLON CRAIG
HANNA MICHAEL
HARMAN SELENA
HARMON ANDREW
HARP KORELL
HEISEL DANA
HENRICKSON CHUCK
HERNDON BARRETT
HERTZER RENEE
HERZOG LANCIA
HESCOTT LAURA
HESSLER WAYNE
HICKERSON ANISSA
HINDMAIN BARBARA
HINES JONATHAN
HIRSCHFIELD NANCY E.
HIVELY MELISSA
HOOD BETHANY
HUANG CHRISTINA
HULL DONA
HUND JOHN
HUNTER ROSE
HUTCHISON CHERYL
ISAACS MARSHALL
IVEY CHRIS
JACKSON KEVIN
JOHNSON ERICA A.
JOHNSON HEATHER
JOHNSON-SECK ERICA A.
JONES CHRISTOPHER
JONES TINA
JUSTICE MELONEE
KAMINSKI JOSEPH
KEMP KRISTEN
KENNERTY HERMAN JOHN
KENNERTY JOHN
KENNERTY JOHN HERMAN
KERR JOHN
KINGSTON PAT
KIRCHNER BAILEY
KIRKLAND TIFFANY
KIRKPATRICK DENNIS
KIST MARY
KNISLEY NICOLE
KNOWLES RITA
KNOX CECELIA
KOCH BILL
KOWAL VICTORIA
KRAKOVIAK KIM
KUSICH BRYAN
LADE JOSHUA
LAIRD PAUL
LANDERS VANESSA
LANG LUCY
LAWRENCE JOEL
LAYTON DERICK
LEE PATRICIA
LEETE JESSICA
LENAIR TOCCOA
LEONARD SHEILA
LINDHORST SUSAN
LITTLE KRISTI A.
LOVE TOPAKO
LUCAS PATRICIA
LYNCH MARY
MADEJA NANCY
MANNING SHANNON
MARTINEZ KIM
MATHIS ELIZABETH
MCGOWAN MARY JO
MCKINNON ELSA
MCKINZEY BRENDA
MEDINA MONICA
MEHARG RON
MICHIE M. KELLY
MILLER SHARITA
MISKELL MEGAN
MOONAN DEBBIE
MOORE CRYSTAL
MORALES NOEMI
MORCAN LILIANA
MORGAN COURTNEY
MORRIS JAMES
MOUA SHOUA
MURAY SUCHAN
NADEAU MICHAEL
NELSON JOYCE
NOLAN ANGELA
NOLAN FRANCIS
NORD III HAROLD
NORIEGA MARTI
NORTH BECKY
OHDE JESSICA
PARDO JUAN
PAYNE JENNIFER
PAYNE LATRESA
PENDLEY CHRISTOPHER
PEREZ DAVID
PETERSON ELENA
PHIDAVANH VIENGMOR
PIRRITANO LAURA
PORTER KIMBERLY
PRATIKAKIS KIM
PRICE TAMARA
PRINDLE MICHAEL
RAYMOND TONY
REIN JOANN
RHYNE LISA
RICE RHOENA
RIVARD AMY
RIVERA SILENA
RIVERS CHRISTEL
ROBERTS HANNAH
ROBINSON KEN
ROGERS YVONNE
RUFF KELLY
RYBARCZYK ROBERT
SACDOVAL TAMERA
SAERER CHRISTINA ANNE
SANTOS MONIQUE
SCHEFFEY SHELLY
SCHEINER SCOTT
SCHILLING THOMAS
SCHLEPPY GREG
SCHULTZ THEODORE
SCROGGINS ROBERT
SEIDEL KEITH
SELMAN KERI
SHAW JENNIFER
SHELTON NIKOLE
SHPITSEK ALLA
SICILIA JOSE
SIMMONS ELLIS
SMITH CINDY
SMITH KATHY
SNOW BRITTANY
SOBOTTA JODI
SORG VICKI
SPOHN STACY
STEPHAN JEFFREY
STEVENS CYNTHIA
STOKES COLEMAN
SUAREZ PETER
TATE ERIC
TAVERAS OSCAR
THOMAS CHERYL
THOMAS HELEN
THOMAS TAWANNA
THOMAS TYWANNA
THORESEN LINDA
THORNE KAREN ELIZABETH
TINOCO CARLA
TOLAR BARBARA
TOPP BRENDAN
TROWBRIDGE CHRISTINA
TURNER SUSAN
TURNER TIAQUANDA
TURNER VERONICA
VADNEY MARIA
VAUGN GARY
VIVEROS MELISSA
WALSH THOMAS
WARREN VALENCIA
WEINAND GINA
WEST DALTON ALLISON
WHITE CAROLYN
WILEMAN D. M.
WILKEN RICK
WILLIAMS ALICIA
WILLIAMS CHAMAGNE
WILLIAMS DAWN
WILLIAMS SANDRA
WILLIAMS YOLANDA
WILLIS TIMOTHY
WOSNAK JILL
WRIGHT KATHY
WRIGHT ROBERT
WRIGHT TRACY

 Download the PDF here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/robosigners.pdf

Deeds of Trust in California are Practically and Substantially only Mortgages with a Power of Sale

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thanks to Simonee for this one – Monterey SP Partnership v. WL Bangham, Inc., 777 P. 2d 623 – Cal: Supreme Court 1989

The California Supreme Court states:

Download opinion here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Monterey_SP_Partnership_vs_WL_Bangham.pdf