Forensic "Securitization" Auditing, Chain of Title Analysis, Legal Support Services, Bonded & Insured
(406) 328-4075

Exposed For Conducting Illegal Foreclosures, Bank Lawyers Left To Flounder In Montana Courts

“Defendants [Homeowners] are trying to perpetrate a fraud on the Court and should be stopped.” 

Recently, my investigative research showing that “foreign business trusts” have been short-cutting Montana laws was revealed in the following two articles:

Well things appear to be heating up here in Montana, and the foreclosure mill attorneys are showing signs of panic and desperation.  As you will see below, the foreclosure attorneys are now stumbling and bumbling to overcome these facts by (1) putting forth inconsistent arguments, (2) ignoring altogether the “20,000 lb. elephant in the room” – non-compliance with MCA § 31-2-210 and MCA § 31-2-2, and (3) accusing the homeowner of being the “fraudster.”

Though it is my opinion that the arguments put forth by the banks will ultimately fail due to the legislature’s unambiguous statutory language, it is both laughable and repugnant that the bank in Phil Slagter’s case has chosen to accuse him of fraud,  simply by exerting his rights and defenses before the Court. Plaintiff’s attorney states on pg.6, ¶3, “Defendants are trying to perpetrate a fraud on the Court and should be stopped.” Don’t believe me? Read it yourself. Citibank Response to Slagter MTD

Folks, this is a sign of pure desperation.

Let’s examine the inconsistencies, shall we?

In my personal “Unlawful Detainer” action (still pending since May in Stillwater County) Plaintiff (US Bank as Trustee for the WaMu 2007-OA3 Trust) argues that the Trust is not required to register in Montana because “The Plaintiff in this case, US Bank, is not a business trust; it is a corporation, not an unincorporated association.” (Pg.7, ¶2) USBank Response to Paatalo MTD

However, faced with the same arguments in the Slagter case in Ravalli County, the Plaintiff (Citibank, N.A. as Trustee for the WaMu 2007-HE2 Trust) admits just this past week that it is indeed a “business trust.” The bank’s counsel states on Pg.4, ¶D, “Plaintiff is a Business Trus[t.]”

Each Plaintiff proclaims to be a “WaMu 2007” series trust, yet the banks make completely different arguments based on the same set of facts; the Trust is not a business trust, and the Trust is a business trust. This goes to show you that the attorneys representing these proclaimed REMIC trusts in Montana are unsure of the law, and how to put forth a valid and consistent argument in defense of their client’s illegal behavior.

So while the bank attorneys trip over themselves, one fact is clear and undisputed; Plaintiffs’ did not comply with MCA § 31-2-210 and MCA § 31-2-211, and thus Plaintiffs did not / could not acquire any rights to the subject properties due to these violations. In neither case do the Plaintiff (“WaMu”) Trusts dispute or rebut the Trusts’ non-compliance with these statutes. Again, here is my uncontested argument:

Shining further light upon the Plaintiff/Trust’s failures to comply with Montana laws, both assignments in 2009 and 2012 to the Plaintiff/Trust failed to comply with MCA § 31-2-210 and MCA § 31-2-211, to which these failures also render the assignments ‘Void.’

               Under  MCA § 71-1-321, deeds of trust under the “Montana Small Tract Financing Act” (MSTFA) are considered to be “mortgages” and are subject to all laws relating to mortgages on real property when a “conveyance for security purposes is made to a trustee or trustees for the benefit of one or more lenders.”

               This statute leads to mandatory compliance under Montana Titles 70 & 31 which read as follows:

70-21-202. Certain transfers in trust — mortgages — when to be recorded.

Transfers of property in trust for the benefit of creditors and transfers or liens on property by way of mortgage or abstract of such document are required to be recorded in the cases specified in Title 31, chapter 2, on the special relation of debtor and creditor and Title 71 on mortgages, respectively.

Section 31-2-210: The instrument of assignment –

(1) An assignment for the benefit of creditors must be in writing and subscribed by the assignor or by the assignor’s agent authorized by writing.

(2) The assignment must be acknowledged or proved and certified in the mode prescribed by the law on recording transfers of real property and recorded as required by 31-2-215 and 31-2-216, but recording in one county constitutes a compliance with 31-2-215 and 31-2-216.

(3) The assignment must be accompanied by the affidavit of the assignor and assignee that the assignment is made in good faith, for the benefit of the creditors of the assignor, and without any design or hinder, delay, or defraud the creditors.

(4) The assent of the assignee, subscribed and acknowledged by the assignee, must appear in writing contained in or at the end of or endorsed upon the assignment before the assignment is recorded and, if separate from the assignment, must be duly acknowledged.

               Failure to comply with these requirements under Montana law means the assignments are “void” under MCA § 31-2-211 which also reads as follows:

Section 31-2-211: Compliance necessary to validity of assignment

Unless the provisions of 31-2-210 are complied with, an assignment for the benefit of creditors is void against every creditor of the assignor not assenting thereto.”

It looks like the banks have created a magic formula:

No response = No defense = Accuse Homeowner of fraud!

Bill Paatalo

Private Investigator

(406) 328-4075

2 Responsesto “Exposed For Conducting Illegal Foreclosures, Bank Lawyers Left To Flounder In Montana Courts”

  1. Janet says:

    Great case from the Oregon Court of Appeals regarding assignments: Zt45XDJz4E2v

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>