Glaski vs Bank of America NA et al – FOR PUBLICATION

Edstrom_MortgageSecuritization_POSTER_17_x_22_v4_1Glaski vs Bank of America NA et al – FOR PUBLICATION

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

On August 8, 2013 the Fifth Appellate District in the Court of Appeal of the State of California ordered the Thomas A. Glaski vs Bank of America, NA et al decision published, stating:

As the nonpublished opinion filed on July 31, 2013, in the above entitled matter hereby meets the standards for publication specified in the California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c), it is ordered that the opinion be certified for publication in the Official Reports.

Based on the importance of this case, the text of the July 31, 2013 ruling is listed verbatim:

Continue reading “Glaski vs Bank of America NA et al – FOR PUBLICATION” »

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

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

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” »

California Appeals Court: Notice of Default is Void if Description of Default Includes “if any”

Edstrom_MortgageSecuritization_POSTER_17_x_22_v4_1California Appeals Court: Notice of Default is Void if Description of Default Includes “if any”

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thank you to HYDROGENE for this one.  According to this decision, the “if any” in the following of a Notice of Default voids the document:

TOGETHER WITH LATE CHARGES AS SET FORTH IN SAID NOTE AND DEED OF TRUST, ADVANCES, ASSESSMENTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES, IF ANY

UPDATE NOTE added 1/9/2012: The Supreme Court of California denied review of this case but ordered that the opinion be not officially published (See California Court–Rules 976, 977 and 979)

Excerpt (fairly long):

Validity Of Notice Of Default
EMC sought to exercise the power of sale in the Deed of Trust on Anolik’s home based on Anolik’s alleged breach of various obligations secured by the Deed of Trust. Anolik alleged in the fourth cause of action in his second amended complaint (for wrongful foreclosure) that “the events of default as alleged . . . in the Notice of Default . . . [we]re false and untrue” and that “the Notice of Default and Election to Sell [wa]s void” as a result.

The trial court concluded the Notice of Default “was proper and is not invalid or void.” Anolik contends the trial court erred in this conclusion. We agree. “The procedure for foreclosing on security by a trustee’s sale pursuant to a deed of trust is set forth in Civil Code section 2924 et seq.”5 (Miller v. Cote (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 888, 894.) Because nonjudicial foreclosure is a “drastic sanction” and a “draconian remedy” (Baypoint Mortgage Corp. v. Crest Premium Real Estate etc. Trust (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 818, 827, 830), “[t]he statutory requirements must be strictly complied with.” (Miller, at p. 894.) Continue reading “California Appeals Court: Notice of Default is Void if Description of Default Includes “if any”” »