Does “LSF9 Master Participation Trust” Lack standing To Sue?
Disclaimer: The following is not to be deemed a “legal opinion.” Seek advice from a licensed attorney regarding the contents of this article.
Last fall, I posted the following article exposing the false merger story that was attested to in a Pennsylvania foreclosure action upon substituting a new Plaintiff “LSF9 Master Participation Trust.”
This substitution of Plaintiff occurred on April 4, 2018. Now, take a look at the following statement filed in Montana Federal Court just the month before:
Here, counsel states his client, “U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. as Trustee for the LSF9 Master Participation Trust,” was sued erroneously as “LSF9 Master Participation Trust.” Crowley Fleck made sure to include a trustee for the named trust. Why? Because a “trust” is not a real party in interest. A trust is not an entity. The real party in interest is the trustee whose job is to act on behalf of the trust. See: Randolph Fndn. v. Appeal Fr. Prob., Ct. Sup. 4795 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2001). So, could this mean that the “LSF9 Master Participation Trust” as the plaintiff in countless foreclosure proceedings never had proper “standing” to have filed complaints? After all, it admits to being an erroneous name as defendant, but continues to file this erroneous name as plaintiff. Here are a few excerpts from the Michigan Supreme Court back in 2007 in Miller II v. Chapman Contracting (see: MILLER II v. CHAPMAN CONTRACTING | FindLaw).:
“In this case, plaintiff’s attorney erroneously named plaintiff, instead of his bankruptcy trustee, as the plaintiff in this lawsuit. After the period of limitations expired, defendants moved to dismiss the case, pointing out the failure to name plaintiff’s bankruptcy trustee in the lawsuit. Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint to substitute the bankruptcy trustee as plaintiff, but the trial court dismissed the lawsuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We likewise affirm.”
“The court is satisfied that because the bankruptcy trustee was the real party in interest prior to the filing of the Complaint, this is a motion to add a party and is not merely a request to correct a misnomer. Thus, the court finds that based on the binding precedent in Employers, the amendment would be futile as the addition of the new party cannot relate back to the original Complaint.”
So for anyone who has been sued by “LSF9 Master Participation Trust,” or any other named trust that failed to name any trustee(s), there may be a jurisdictional issue in play.
Bill Paatalo – Private Investigator – OR PSID# 49411
bill.bpia@gmail.com
Leave a Reply