Brandrup v. ReconTrust Co. – MERS Ruling in Oregon Part 1


Brandrup v. ReconTrust Co. – MERS Ruling in Oregon Part 1

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The Oregon Supreme Court was asked four questions, and answered as follows:

We accepted the district court’s certification and allowed the parties in the federal cases to
present their views. We answer those questions — in two instances as reframed — as
follows:

(1) “No.” For purposes of ORS 86.735(1), the “beneficiary” is the lender to whom the obligation that the trust deed secures is owed or the lender’s successor in interest. Thus, an entity like MERS, which is not a lender, may not be a trust deed’s “beneficiary,” unless it is a lender’s successor in interest.

(2) We reframe the second question as follows:
Is MERS eligible to serve as beneficiary under the Oregon Trust DeedAct where the trust deed provides that MERS “holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) has the right: to exercise any or all of those interests”?

Continue reading “Brandrup v. ReconTrust Co. – MERS Ruling in Oregon Part 1” »

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

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; Continue reading “State of Missouri 136 Count Indictment – 68 Class C Felonies for Forgery and 68 Class B Misdemeanors for False Declarations” »

Texas Ropes One In: Motion to Dismiss Denied

Texas Ropes One In: Motion to Dismiss Denied

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
http://www.dtc-systems.net

From April Charney:

…”If the holder of the deed of trust does not own or hold the note, the deed of trust serves no purpose, is impotent, and cannot be a vehicle for depriving the grantor of the deed of trust of ownership of the property described in the deed of trust….[finding that]…inherent in the procedural steps outlined in the Texas Property Code is the assumption that whatever entity qualifies as a “mortgagee” either owns the note or is serving as an agent for the owner or holder of the note; and, the statute assumes that when a foreclosure is conducted by someone other than the owner or holder of the note, the person conducting the foreclosure will be acting as agent or nominee for the owner or holder…Otherwise, the Texas statutory law would make no sense, and would be directly at odds with long-standing, basic principles governing the relationship between real estate borrowers, on the one hand, and their corresponding secured real estate lenders, on the other.” (edited from the below decision):
JANE McCARTHY, Plaintiff, vs. BANK OF AMERICA, NA, BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendants. NO. 4:11-CV-356-A December 22, 2011
 

Show me the Note in California

Show me the Note in California

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

I have seen this topic of interest many times as well as numerous court cases where lawyers and judges profer that the note does not need to be produced. Whether it needs to be produced or not I will not venture to guess but for my own case I used California Civil Code 2943 and received an alleged “true and correct copy” almost immediately – including the alleged allonges and the alleged endorsements. For legal advice as to your own situation and the applicability of this law to any situation consult an attorney. This is only what I did for my own case.

California Civil Code 2943

(a) As used in this section:
(1) “Beneficiary” means a mortgagee or beneficiary of a mortgage
or deed of trust, or his or her assignees.
(2) “Beneficiary statement” means a written statement showing: Continue reading “Show me the Note in California” »