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):
The OCC Misses the Point on Toxic Waste
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
http://www.dtc-systems.net
We all see what we want to see. But when others control the conversation, it is easy to miss the point. As a regulator the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency should be taking the lead and controlling the conversation, but in reality, they have been bridled and are being led around by the nose. Conspiciously absent are numerous issues they as a regulator have the responsibility of dealing with. This article is timely in response to an article by Neil F. Garfield (http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/the-big-lie-banks-did-nothing-illegal/), which is a response to Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism article (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/more-msm-criticism-of-obama-nothing-illegal-here-move-along-stance-on-foreclosure-fraud.html), which is a response to a Reuters article (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/22/us-foreclosures-idUSTRE7BL0MC20111222). But I found none of these articles until I was finished writing this post. Take the following random and critical issues:
- Are the loans in the pool? Were the loans ever in the pool? Does the pool exist? Did the pool perfect interest in any of the loans? This issue is very political and the OCC in our opinion will never address this issue or look into this.
- What loans are in default? Can a loan be in default? What comes first, the default or the loss?
- Are there any compliance issues?
Continue reading “The OCC Misses the Point on Toxic Waste” »
FTC Consent Judgment and Order against BAC Home Loans Servicing
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
Am I the only one who missed this Consent Judgment and Order against BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (hereinafter ”BAC”) and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (hereinafter “Countrywide”) from the Federal Trade Commission? They seem to have put quite a damper in what they can and cannot do. Has BAC complied with the following since this order dated June 15, 2010:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within one-hundred fifty (150) days from the date of entry of this Order, Defendants, their officers, employees, agents, representatives, and all other Persons or entities in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division, or other device, are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined, in connection with the Servicing of any Loan, from failing to disclose Clearly and Prominently the following information: Continue reading “FTC Consent Judgment and Order against BAC Home Loans Servicing” »
L. Randall Wray does it again – Requiem For MERS
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics and Research Director for the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, University of Missouri-Kansas City posted an article on the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com) that I somehow missed. The MERS design was woven in fraud. Professor Wray points out the two main issues with MERS. The first is that most foreclosures are illegal because those doing the foreclosing do not have legal standing. Second the practices that create the foreclosure problems also mean that the mortgage backed securities are actually unsecured debt. Professor Wray says that this means the banks must take them back, so they are toast. He also states that it all comes back to MERS business model: it destroyed the chain of title.
Continue reading “L. Randall Wray does it again – Requiem For MERS” »
