U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez 458 Mass. 637 (2011) – The High Cost of Litigation
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
This case is a fiasco beyond imagination. This boarded up house was the subject of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision where US Bank as Trustee of a securitized trust lost in an attempt to obtain a judicial declaration of clear title. The investors now have an accounting that they can review. The losses keep coming month after month and may not be finalized for many more years. Here is what is being reported to the investors and ratings agencies as of February 2012:
Current Amt: $0.00
Paidoff: 9/2008
Last Report Date: 2/2012
Liquidation: $102,077
Curr Loss (as of 2/2012): $29,832.56
Cumulative loss: $274,340.89
Loss Severity (%): 268.76%
Original Amount: $103,500
The cumulative loss and loss severity are extremely high. This is not a record high for the amount or the loss severity percentage. But for a boarded up house that is probably not worth $100,000.00 it sure is quite a hit. Good thing there are still 440 or so loans in this trust with a current balance of over $88 million. That makes this small amount easy to swallow. In reality the loss amount is very low because the loan amount is low. Another loan in this same pool had a cumulative loss of $770,630.99 and a loss severity of 86.41%. The loan amount was $900,000.
Now for the real question. How does a loan for $103,500 actually cost the investors a loss of $274,340.89? Where does the “exta” amount come from to pay for the loss of this property?
INVESTORS COMING OUT OF THE SHADOWS: BANKS’ WORST NIGHTMARE
By Neil F. Garfield
LivingLies.wordpress.comEDITOR’S ANALYSIS: For those who have followed this Blog for any length of time, this news will come as no surprise. Ultimately, the proof and the relief sought by homeowners will come from investors who demand answers to what happened to their money when they purchased mortgage backed securities and pooled their money to fund mortgages.
The result is a pincer action, to put it military terms, where the creditors and the debtors are making the same allegations against the intermediaries who stole from both sides, “borrowed” the loss to claim Federal bailout money, and left both sides holding the bag. Continue reading “INVESTORS COMING OUT OF THE SHADOWS: BANKS’ WORST NIGHTMARE” »
US Bank Summary Judgment Denied in Iowa
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
Motion for Summary Judgment denied in Iowa.
Download ruling: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/US_Bank_vs_Wheeler_MSJ_Ruling.pdf
US Bank is not the Note Holder – North Carolina: Bass vs. US Bank
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
This case is listed here without comment. The issues of endorsements, allonges, burden of proof, etc. are raised here and are very illuminating.
In the Matter of the foreclosure of a Deed of Trust executed by Tonya R. Bass in the original amount of $139,988.00 dated October 12, 2005, recorded in Book 4982, Page 86, Durham County Registry,
Substitute Trustee Services, Inc., as Substitute Trustee,
No. COA11-565.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
Filed: December 6, 2011.
K&L Gates, LLP, by A. Lee Hogewood III, and Brian C. Fork for Petitioner-appellant.
Legal Aid of North Carolina, Inc., by E. Maccene Brown, Gregory E. Pawlowski, John Christopher Lloyd, and Andre C. Brown, for Respondent-appellee.
ROBERT N. HUNTER, JR., Judge.
U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee, c/o Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Petitioner”) appeals the trial court’s order dismissing foreclosure proceedings against Respondent Tonya R. Bass. Petitioner assigns error to the trial court’s determination that Petitioner is not the legal holder of a promissory note executed by Respondent and therefore lacks authorization to foreclose on Respondent’s property securing the note under a deed of trust. After careful review, we affirm.
I. Factual & Procedural Background Continue reading “US Bank is not the Note Holder – North Carolina: Bass vs. US Bank” »
