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

This Really Is Significant!

From Matt Weidner Esq.’s Blog:

http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/?utm_source=Matt+Weidner+Law+Blog&utm_campaign=6b9c91feff-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email

If the trust does not give Wells Fargo the right to litigate….THEN THEY ARE OUT OF COURT
Wow….this really is extraordinary. This is a great panel of appellate court judges….just listen to them tear into this case…piece by piece. Importantly, they tear into a key issue that is bubbling up all across this country….

IF THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THE PRINCIPAL AUTHORIZED THE ACTION, THE AGENT HAS NOT AUTHORITY….AS THE GOOD JUDGE SAYS….
“THEY ARE OUT OF COURT!”

A judgement was entered when there was no answer filed!
And this is what really blows my mind…beginning at 2:26, just listen to what the good Judge says:
I hate to spin into the abyss…but Freemont Investment and Loan is not a legal entity is it?
And quite honestly, I’m not sure an entity with no legal existence can make any kind of assignment.
I cannot understand why the endorsement was on the back of the note when there was plenty of room on the front of the note.
The plaintiff in this case alleged, as officers of the court, “The conditions precedent have all been met”
Even in their complaint, they allege that MERS was a “nominee”, I think that’s a fiction….MERS had to make the assignment…if MERS is the Mortgagee….don’t they have to assign the note?

Few cases are simplier than foreclosure unless you layer in all these assignments and unrecorded assignments and no trust agreements….it creates a problem
And from the attorney: These plaintiff’s are engaging in systematic fraud all across this country…

This is just an extraordinary argument here…the appellate court accepting real argument and stating what is the clear and existing law in force all across this country…they nailed the law in this case….laws and principles that are being ignored all across this country. Why can’t the judges in trial courts and appellate courts all across the country apply the law just as these good judges do so clearly and directly here? Just think of how much more stable and legitimate our entire legal system would be if all courts…or even if more courts…would apply the law and the rules just like these judges are doing in this case?
That’s really what the fraudclosure wars are all about. With disturbing frequency, courts all across this country have given the banks wide berth and looked the other way while banks get away with whatever in the hell they want to….but not here….not in this courtroom….the court simply holds the plaintiff bank to a proper legal standard…….
Justice….might it still exist?

Anastasios and Dina Zervas appeal a final judgment of foreclosure
entered in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee for the MLMI Trust Series 2005-
FM1. We reverse because Wells Fargo did not establish that no answer which the
Zervases might file could present a genuine issue of fact.
Zervas v. Wells

Bill Paatalo’s Comments:

Every day, I am conducting securitization audits where the alledged securitized trusts are claiming ownership of the loans in an attempt to foreclose. Every situation I have seen involves a late assignment of the Mortgage/Deed of Trust & Note to the MBS trust years after the closing and cut-off date of the trusts. This act violates the terms and conditions of the trusts’ governing document (the “Pooling & Servicing” agreement.) The trusts are forbidden from conducting business after the closing date, and are not allowed to accept assets; especially non-performing ones. This is common knowledge to most of us entrenched in “fraudclosureland.”

In most judicial settings, the servicers take action to foreclose as agents of the trusts, and the attorneys represent both the trust and the servicer. The servicer typically does all the talking while the trust essentially “pleads the 5th.” I don’t believe the trusts are aware, nor could the servicers ever show proof, that the trusts themselves authorized foreclosure proceedings. How could they? The certificateholders could not declare a default due to the fact that they have been receiving their regular monthly payments per the “Advance” requirements of the PSA’s regardless of whether or not the payment comes from the borrower(s.) In essence, the servicers are using the remedy of foreclosure to recoup these unknown and undisclosed “advances.” The servicers were not a party to the original contract and are not entitled to this remedy. This is why I highly recommend our “Phase II” audit! We can provide the internal accounting to show these advances, along with the evidence that the trust “tranches” have suffered “zero realized and cumulative losses” during the period in which the borrower(s) have not been making payments. The evidence typicall shows a declining principal balance during the periods of the alleged “default(s.”)

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>