Some unhappy the way Harvard spends its money

CAMBRIDGE (FOX 25 / MyFoxBoston.com) – Going from Dewey Square to Harvard Yard as Occupy protesters set up camp at the legendary Ivy League school. Tents began popping up in the yard Wednesday night, where students of the Cambridge school rallied earlier in the day.

About 350 people gathering outside in Harvard Square, waiving signs and at one point, security was checking IDs at the yard’s gate.

Students are demanding a new contract for custodial workers and are unhappy with the way Harvard spends some of its money. They believe Harvard’s $32 billion endowment has supported questionable policies, and should bear more social responsibility.

“Personally, I’m slightly uncomfortable receiving money in scholarships that come from a direct result of displacing people and depriving them of their lands and their livelihoods,” said Reed McConnell, a Harvard Freshman.

“I love the scholarship money I am getting from Harvard but I don’t want the money coming from expense of somebody who is getting their land taken away” says Reed.

When asked if she’d rather take out loans, McConnell says “The way I see it, I shouldn’t have to. Harvard should be able to make socially responsible investments and earn the same returns and still be able to give incredible financial aid.”

Harvard released a statement, saying free speech is a hallmark of the university to uphold, but will also ensure the safety of its students, especially those who live in the yard.

Hundreds of protesters marched out of Harvard Yard and into Mass Ave Wednesday, stopping traffic in Harvard Square and taking over the street in what appeared to be an impromptu march.

Protesters held signs reading “We want a University for the 99 percent.” Other groups, like ‘Justice for Janitors’ joined in the march as well.

“It just shows how this movement can proliferate,” said Jason Rowe, a Harvard student.

Harvard’s own web site says the school costs more than $52,000 a year for room, board, tuition and fees combined. It also says more than 60-percent of Harvard college students receive financial aid. The average grant this year was $40,000.

Several days ago, 70 students walked out of an economics class at Harvard University and joined with Occupy Boston to protest the way Harvard invests its endowment.

While filming a police line at Occupy Oakland after midnight on Nov. 3 following the Nov. 2 general strike, an officer opens fire and shoots me with a rubber bullet. I was standing well back. There was no violence or confrontations of any kind underway. At 0:31 seconds you can see a tall officer in the front raise his weapon and then fire. This is the full clip of the incident.

“Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day.”
- Thomas Jefferson

Assignment of Mortgage and Foreclosure Fraud

If you have not seen this 60 minutes piece on Lynn Syzmoniacs’ exposure of robo-signing fraud perpetrated for the whos who of mortgage lenders, it really is a must see. Conveniently these predatory lenders hide behind LPS and its little bitch DOCx who facilitated the fraudulent foreclosure on BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars worth of real estate. Bank of America has disclosed in its recent 10k the need to put away billions for potential (highly probably) suits over the fraud.  You will be shocked. Can this really go on here in the USA?   Liberty bells ringing… Hrmm… Just what is this democracy we are exporting on the front of tanks and apache helicopters everywhere else in the world? We have a little clean up to do here starting in the executive rooms of the national sub-prime lenders.

The reason these banks used LPS and DOCx to forge documents (and continue to do the same thing through other entities) is not because they cannot find the notes, they have them and they know exactly where they are. The sad truth for Wall Street is they were NEVER ENDORSED. Never signed  in accordance with the PSA-Pooling and Servicing agreements of the mortgage backed securities that purport to own them. The MBS’s.  Ummm… They don’t OWN them!  Research filing quiet title actions against your lender.  Fill out our form and contact us. THEY screwed up, but YOU have rights!! Get a securitization audit and correct your land record by filing a quiet title action. Stop your foreclosure and defend yourself.  If
you have not been foreclosed on yet, we work very closely with a national law firm that will do this for you.

Ph: 540-341-1481
Em: info@legalforensicauditors.com – best to fill out the form to find out more…

Securitization Auditing and Chain of Title Analysis

Do you have any idea who owns you mortgage note? If there is a MIN number on your mortgage or deed of trust and MERS is named as “Nominee” or “Beneficiary” of the deed, there is an extremely high chance that your mortgage has been securitized and placed into an MBS- Mortgage Baked Securities pool. But has the note been properly placed into the pool? How can you tell? The first thing you need to do is go to your local county records and pull everything that has been filed in the clerks office against your property. You will not find the promissory note in the county record because MERS was designed by former Fannie and Freddie and BOA executives to allow the large national predatory lenders to avoid transfer taxes by using MERS as a variable in the land records. The banks and trustees can trade the promissory notes like baseball cards without paying local transfer taxes to support the Counties in which they conduct business. OK back to Securitization auditing. If a substitution of trustee document has been placed in the land record, the party who substituted in a new trustee is purporting to have physical and legal posession of the promissory note. It will usually be a pass through certificate, or trust in the form of something like CWHL trust 2002-ih, or Lehman brothers 2003 series 31 pass through certificate. This is the Mortgage pool that bought your note along with many others packaged by a bank or investment bank. The MBS has a prospectus, much like a new IPO or a mutual fund. This prospectus describes the pool and the tranches of investment in the pool and has a very important document called the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) The PSA, in every single instance I have ever noted describes among other things exactly how the notes must be endorsed in order for the trust to legally own them. Further the PSA will describe the cut off date for legal acceptance of a note into the pool. If the notes are not endorsed in accordance with the PSA -OR- there is some other issue and the cut off date has passed, the pool does not and cannot own your note. A recent case in US District Court of Alabama underscores this very significant issue that the banks who packaged and sold these loans have. See Horace v. Lasalle National Bank as successor to Bank of America. The spacing on this case below if off because I copied it from a PDF and I’m too lazy to go through 25 pages and correct the spacing.. Read this then fill out the form to your right to talk to one of our mortgage analysts.

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
3/30/2011 2:12 PM
CV-2008-000362.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
RUSSELL COUNTY, ALABAMA
KATHY S. COULTER, CLERK
PHYLLIS HORACE, ) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
Plaintiff, ) RUSSELL COUNTY, ALABAMA
vs. ) CASE NO. CV 08-362
LASALLE BANK NATIONAL )
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants, )
ORDER
This cause comes before the court for hearing on March 21, 2 0 11.
It is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
Following hearing and review of all submissions from the parties the Court has come to
two conclusions necessary for the disposition of this case:
First, the Court is surprised to the point of astonishment that the defendant trust (LaSalle
Bank National Association) did not comply with the terms of its own Pooling and Servicing
Agreement and further did not comply with New York Law in attempting to obtain assignment of
plaintiff Horace’s note and mortgage.
Second, plaintiff Horace is a third party beneficiary of the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement created by the defendant trust (LaSalle Bank National Association). Indeed without
such Pooling and Servicing Agreements, plaintifi Horace and other mortgagors similarly situated
would never have been able to obtain financing.
Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted to the extent that
defendant trust (LaSalle Bank Nationai Association) is permanently enjoined from foreclosing on
the property at 3745 Knowles Road in Phenix City, Alabama.
Further, the Court is of the opinion there is no reason for further delay as to the entry of
final judgment concerning the issue of foreclosure by the trust (LaSalle Bank National
Association).
That notice shall issue to the parties.
DONE this the 25th day of March, 2011.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RUSSELL COUNTY, ALABAMA
PHYLLIS HORACE,
CASE NUMBER:
PLAINTIFF,
CV-2008-362
VS.
LASALLE BANK NATIONALASSOCIATION
as Trustee for Certificate Holders of
BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES I, LLC
asset backed certificates, series 2006-EC2;
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC., ENCORE CREDIT CORP.,
EMC MORTGAGE CO., and BANK OF AMERICA,
As successor-in-interest to Lasalle Bank National
Assn.,
DEFENDANTS.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Phyllis Horace, through counsel, submits this memorandum of law in support of
her motion for summary judgment on the issue of standing as to Defendant LaSalle Bank
National Association (“LaSalle”). Plaintiff’s Complaint claims that LaSalle did not have
possession of the mortgage note when it notified her that foreclosure was forthcoming. Namely,
LaSalle had no — and cannot have any — authority to institute foreclosure proceedings because
LaSalle is not entitled to the money secured by the promissory note.
INTRODUCTION
On November 11, 2005, Plaintiff borrowed $283,500.00 for the purchase of property at
3745 Knowles Road in Phenix City, Alabama. The loan was secured by a mortgage to the lender
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
1/13/2011 5:43 PM
CV-2008-000362.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
RUSSELL COUNTY, ALABAMA
KATHY S. COULTER, CLERK
- 2 -
Encore Credit Corp (“Encore”). The mortgage was recorded in the office of the probate judge on
August 11, 2006.At some unknown time after the signing of the mortgage documents, Encore
executed a blank endorsement.1 No other assignments or endorsements are present in the record
provided to the Plaintiff.2
On October 16, 2008, LaSalle sent a “Notice of Acceleration of Promissory Note and
Mortgage” to Plaintiff. Plaintiff then filed the instant cause. The court enjoined the foreclosure
by order entered on November 20, 2008. Plaintiff currently lives in the subject property. Plaintiff
comes before the court today requesting a judgment that the foreclosure proceeding be
permanently enjoined as to the defendant Trustee LaSalle acting for its beneficiary trust (and
Bank of America as the successor-in-interest), the only entity to give notice of foreclosure and
for summary judgment on her claims related to the wrongful foreclosure of this real property.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate only when “there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and … the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”ALA. R. CIV. PROC.
56(c)(3), Young v. La Quinta Inns, Inc., 682 So.2d 402 (Ala.1996). A court considering a motion
for summary judgment will view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,
Hurst v. Alabama Power Co., 675 So.2d 397 (Ala.1996), Fuqua v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 591
So.2d 486 (Ala. 1991); will accord the nonmoving party all reasonable favorable inferences from
the evidence, Fuqua, supra, Aldridge v. Valley Steel Constr., Inc., 603 So.2d 981 (Ala. 1992);
and will resolve all reasonable doubts against the moving party. Ex parte Brislin, 719 So.2d 185
(Ala.1998).
1 Bates #: Horace v. LaSalle 29.
2 Bates #: Horace v. LaSalle 2.
- 3 -
III. ARGUMENTS
A. THE DEFENDANT TRUST HAS NO STANDING TO FORECLOSE BECAUSE
THERE HAS BEEN NO VALID ENFORCEABLE ASSIGNMENT TO THE TRUSTEE
OF THE TRUST
A-1.The Defendant Trust Is A New York Common Law Trust Governed By New York
Law Based On Its Trust Agreement
The October 16, 2008 Notice sent to Plaintiff was on behalf of the legal entity,“LaSalle
Bank National Association, as Trustee for Certificate holders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed
Securities I LLC, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-EC2” (hereafter the “Trust”). LaSalle
is not the originator of the mortgage, the servicer, or even a bank. Instead, this entity is a New
York common law trust created by an agreement known as “Pooling and Service Agreement.”
Allegedly, the Plaintiff’s loan, along with other loans, were pooled into a trust and converted into
mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) that can be bought and sold by investors — a process
known as securitization. The underlying promissory notes of each and every mortgage held by
the Trust serve as generate a potential income stream for investors.
The Trust allegedly holding the Plaintiff’s note was created on or about February 1, 2006,
and is identified as “LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee for Certificate holders of
Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-EC2.”The
Trust, by its terms, set a “closing date” of February 28, 2006.The terms of the Trust are
contained in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA” or the “Trust agreement”), which is
an approximately 400-page document that creates the Trust and defines the rights, duties and
- 4 -
obligations of the parties to the Trust Agreement.3
The Trust, being sued through its trustee, is a New York Corporate Trust formed to act as
a “REMIC” trust (defined below) pursuant to the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”). Pursuant
to the terms of the Trust and the applicable Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) regulations adopted
and incorporated into the terms of the Trust, the “closing date” of the Trust (February 28, 2006)
is also the “Startup Day” for the Trust under the REMIC provisions of the IRC. The Startup Day
is significant because the IRC ties the limitations upon which a REMIC trust may be receive its
assets to this date. The relevant portion of the IRC addressing the definition of a REMIC is:
The PSA is filed under oath with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is attached to LaSalle’s motion for summary judgment
as Exhibit 1. The PSA also incorporates by reference a separate document called the Mortgage
Loan Purchase Agreement (“MLPA”). These various documents, and hence the acquisition of
the mortgage assets for the Trust, are governed under the law of the State of New York pursuant
to section 11.03 of the PSA (found at page 133 of 397 of the PSA).
(a) General rule. For purposes of this title, the terms ‘real estate mortgage
investment conduit’and ‘REMIC’ mean any entity—
(1) to which an election to be treated as a REMIC applies for the taxable year
and all prior taxable years,
(2) all of the interests in which are regular interests or residual interests,
(3) which has 1 (and only 1) class of residual interests (and all distributions, if
any, with respect to such interests are pro rata),
(4) as of the close of the 3rd month beginning after the startup dayand at all
times thereafter, substantially all of the assets of which consist of qualified
mortgages and permitted investments.
26 U.S.C.S. § 860D(emphasis added).
3It is settled that the duties and powers of a trustee are defined by the terms of the trust
agreement and are tempered only by the fiduciary obligation of loyalty to the beneficiaries (see,
United States Trust Co. v First Nat’l City Bank, 57 A.D.2d 285, 295-296, aff’d 45 NY2d 869;
Restatement [Second] of Trusts § 186, comments a, d). See In re IBJ Schroder Bank & Trust
Co., 271 A.D.2d 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2000)
- 5 -
The IRC also provides definitions of prohibited transactions and prohibited contributions
which are relevant to this case as well. In the context of this case, the relevant statute is the
definition of prohibited contributions which is as follows:
26 U.S.C. 860G(d)(1) states:
Except as provided in section 860G(d)(2), “if any amount is contributed to a
REMIC after the startup day, there is hereby imposed a tax for the taxable year of
the REMIC in which the contribution is received equal to 100 percent of the
amount of such contribution.”
26 U.S.C. 860G(d)(2) states:
(2) Exceptions. Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any contribution which is made in
cash and is described in any of the following subparagraphs:
(A) Any contribution to facilitate a clean-up call (as defined in regulations) or a
qualified liquidation.
(B) Any payment in the nature of a guarantee.
(C) Any contribution during the 3-month period beginning on the startup day.
(D) Any contribution to a qualified reserve fund by any holder of a residual
interest in the REMIC.
(E) Any other contribution permitted in regulations.
The PSA (primarily in section 9.12) addresses these sections of the IRC by obliging the
parties to the Trust to avoid any action which might jeopardize the tax status of any REMIC
and/or impose any tax upon the Trust for prohibited contributions or prohibited transactions.
These PSA provisions are important to the court’s analysis of the facts in this case because of the
interplay between the New York trust law, the IRC’s REMIC provisions, and the PSA’s
incorporation of the IRC REMIC provisions.
A-2.The Trust Instrument/PSA Sets Forth A Specific Time, Method And Manner Of
Funding The Trust
The Trust seeking to foreclose on the Plaintiff has included in the terms of its Trust
agreement (the PSA) a specific time, method and manner of funding the Trust with its assets.
- 6 -
The most critical time is the Trust’s closing date, February 28, 2006.4 According to the terms of
the PSA, all of the assets of the Trust were to be transferred to the Trust on or before the closing
date.5 This requirement is to ensure that the Trust will receive REMIC status and thus be
exempt from federal income taxation. Section 2.02(a) of the PSA provides for a window of 90
days after the Trust closing date in which the Trust may complete any missing paperwork or
finalize any documents necessary to complete the transfers of assets from the depositor to the
Trust.6
B. THE TRUST AGREEMENT PROVIDES THE ONLY MANNER IN WHICH ASSETS
MAY BE PROPERLY TRANSFERRED TO THE TRUST AND ANY ACT IN
CONTRAVENTION OF THE TRUST AGREEMENT IS VOID
Thus, for an asset to become an asset of the Trust it must have been transferred to the
Trust within the time set forth in the PSA. The additional 90 days in the timeline requirement is
incorporated from the REMIC provisions of the IRC to provide a “clean-up period” for a REMIC
to complete the documents associated with the transfers of assets to a REMIC after the startup
day (which is also the Trust closing date). Therefore, according to the plain terms of the Trust
agreement in this case, the closing date/startup date was February 28, 2006 and the last day for
transfer of assets into the Trust was May 29, 2006.
B-1. Transfer of Assets to the Trust Pursuant to the Trust Instrument/PSA
As a generic matter, there are several methods by which the underlying assets of the
Trust, specifically the individual promissory notes, might be transferred or conveyed. A trust’s
ability to transact is restricted to the actions authorized by its trust documents. In this case, the
Trust documents permit only one specific method of transfer to the Trust. That method is set
forth in Section 2.01 of the PSA:
4http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1352655/000088237706000801/d431341.htm(last viewed 1/7/10) This date is
defined in the Trust instrument at page 25 of 397 in exhibit 1.
5 This requirement is found at Section 2.01 on page 56 of 397.
6 This requirement is found at page 58 of 397.
- 7 -
Pursuant to the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, each Seller sold,
transferred, assigned, set over and otherwise conveyed to the Depositor, without
recourse, all the right, title and interest of such Seller in and to the assets
sold by it in the Trust Fund….
In connection with such sale, the Depositor has delivered to, and
deposited with, the Trustee or the Custodian, as its agent, the following
documents or instruments with respect to each Mortgage Loan so assigned: (i) the
original Mortgage Note, including any riders thereto, endorsed without recourse
(A) in blank or to the order of “LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee
for Certificateholders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC,
Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-EC2,”or (B) in the case of a loan
registered on the MERS system, in blank, and in each case showing an unbroken
chain of endorsements from the original payee thereof to the Person endorsing it
to the Trustee,
The analysis of this transfer language requires the court to consider each part. In the second
paragraph of the language in the Trust Agreement, the first statement is one of transfer, stating
“the Depositor has delivered to and deposited with the Trustee or the Custodian the following
documents”. The key document is the original mortgage note, which requires mandatory
endorsements found in this language: “the original mortgage note….endorsed without
recourse” followed by two alternatives which are phrased in the either/or format. The first
labeled “A” states “in blank or to the order of “LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee
for Certificateholders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC ,Asset-Backed
Certificates, Series 2006-EC2.” The second possibility stated in “B” provides as the “or”
proposition for transfer the following statement “in the case of a loan registered on the MERS
system, in blank…” In each case, the affirmative language of the Trust agreement places a
burden on the depositor to make a valid legal transfer in the terms required by the Trust
instrument. The key language in the entire paragraph is the final statement trailing the
“either/or” language of A & B which reads: “and in each case showing an unbroken chain of
endorsements from the original payee thereof to the Person endorsing it to the Trustee”.
- 8 -
Stacked upon the top of this requirement of an unbroken chain of endorsements is the
requirement of certification of the final contents of the collateral file for the benefit of the Trust.
This requirement is found at Exhibit 1 to the MLPA (Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement),
which is an attachment to and incorporated as a part of the PSA in Section 2.01. This Document
is found at Horace 391 and states as follows:
With respect to each Mortgage Loan, the Mortgage File shall include each of the
following items, which shall be available for inspection by the Purchaser or its
designee, and which shall be delivered to the Purchaser or its designee pursuant to
the terms of this Agreement.
(a) The original Mortgage Note, including any riders thereto, endorsed without
recourse to the order of “LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee for
certificateholders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC, Asset-Backed
Certificates, Series 2006-EC2,”and showing to the extent available to the related
Mortgage Loan Seller an unbroken chain of endorsements from the original payee
thereof to the Person endorsing it to the Trustee;
The foregoing requirement demonstrates clearly that while the parties to the securitization made
provisions whereby promissory notes for this Trust might be delivered in blank to the Trustee,
there were two requirements that were mandatory. First, all notes sold to the Trust were required
to have an unbroken chain of endorsements from the original payee to the person endorsing it to
the Trustee. This requirement stems from a particular business concern in securitization, namely
to evidence that there was in fact a “true sale” of the securitized assets and that they are in no
way still property of the originator, sponsor, or depositor, and thus not subject to the claims of
creditors of the originator, sponsor, or depositor. A fact testified to by the Plaintiff’s
securitization expert, Thomas J. Adams, who explained under examination by Counsel for the
Trust as follows:
Page 83
17 Q So what then I guess with respect to
18 notes is — what’s the purpose then of having a
19 chain of endorsements, if what I’m concerned
- 9 -
20 about is who currently owns it?
21 A My understanding is that it helps
22 establish how you came to possess it.
23 Q Okay. And why does that matter?
Page 84
1 A From an investor perspective in a
2 mortgage backed securities governed by a pooling
3 and servicing agreement, you want confidence
4 that the collateral for the file is properly
5 conveyed to it, that — that the — that they
6 will have the right to establish their ownership
7 as investors in that collateral.
Second, there was a requirement that ultimately, within 90 days of the Trust closing date,
the actual promissory note must be endorsed over to the trustee for the specific trust to
effectively transfer the asset into the trust and therefore make the Horace promissory note Trust
property. This requirement finds support in logic and law and is, in fact, the ancient and settled
law of New York on this issue.
B-2. New York Law Governs The Mandatory Requirements To Effectively Transfer
An Asset To A Trust
It is not contested that securitization trusts, such as the defendant, are subject to
the common law of New York.7 New York’s trust law is ancient and settled. There are
a few principles of New York Trust law that are particularly important to the analysis of
whether any particular asset is an asset of a given trust. Under New York law, the
analysis of whether an asset is trust property is determined under the law of gifts.8
7 As early as 1935, in Burgoyne v. James, 282 N.Y.S. 18, 21 (1935), the New York Supreme Court recognized that
business trusts, also known as ““Massachusetts trusts”,”are deemed to be common law trusts. See also In re Estate
of Plotkin, 290 N.Y.S.2d 46, 49 (N.Y. Sur. 1968) (characterizing common stock trust funds as ““common law
trust[s]””). Other jurisdictions are in accord. See, e.g., Mayfield v. First ’Nat’l Bank of Chattanooga, 137 F.2d 1013
(6th Cir. 1943) (applying common law trust principles to a pool of mortgage participation certificate holders).
In
order to have a valid inter vivos gift, there must be a delivery of the gift (either by a
8““In the case of a trust where there is a trustee other than the grantor, transfer will be governed by the existing rules
as to intent and delivery (the elements of a gift)””In re Becker, 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 51773U, 4 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2004).
- 10 -
physical delivery of the subject of the gift) or a constructive or symbolic delivery (such
as by an instrument of gift) sufficient to divest the donor of dominion and control over
the property9 and “what is sufficient to constitute delivery ‘must be tailored to suit the
circumstances of the case’”.10 The delivery rule requires that “‘[the] delivery necessary
to consummate a gift must be as perfect as the nature of the property and the
circumstances and surroundings of the parties will reasonably permit.’”11
“Under New York law there are four essential elements of a valid trust of
personal property: (1) A designated beneficiary; (2) a designated trustee, who must not
be the beneficiary; (3) a fund or other property sufficiently designated or identified to
enable title thereto to pass to the trustee; and (4) the actual delivery of the fund or other
property, or of a legal assignment thereof to the trustee, with the intention of passing
legal title thereto to him as trustee.”12 There is no trust under the common law until there
is a valid delivery of the asset in question to the Trust.13
9 (see, Matter of Szabo, 10 N.Y.2d 94, 98-99, supra; Speelman v Pascal, 10 N.Y.2d 313, 318-320, supra; Beaver v.
Beaver, 117 N.Y. 421, 428-429, supra; Matter of Cohn, 187 App. Div. 392, 395) as cited in Gruen v. Gruen, 68
N.Y.2d 48, 56 (N.Y. 1986).
If the trust fails to acquire the
10(Matter of Szabo, supra, at p. 98).
11 (id.; Vincent v Rix, 248 N.Y. 76, 83; Matter of Van Alstyne, supra, at p 309; see, Beaver v. Beaver, supra, at p
428) as cited in Gruen v. Gruen, 68 N.Y.2d 48, 56-57 (N.Y. 1986) .
12 Brown v. Spohr, 180 N.Y. 201, 209-210 (N.Y. 1904).
13 Until the delivery to the trustee is performed by the settlor, or until the securities are definitely ascertained by the
declaration of the settlor, when he himself is the trustee, no rights of the beneficiary in a trust created without
consideration arise (cf. Riegel v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 266 App. Div. 586; Matter of Gurlitz [Lynde],
105 Misc 30, aff’d 190 App. Div. 907, supra; Marx v. Marx, 5 Misc 2d 42) as cited in Sussman v. Sussman, 61
A.D.2d 838 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1978).
- 11 -
property,then there is no trust over that property which may be enforced.14 An attempt to
convey to a trust will fail if there is no designated beneficiary in the conveyance.15
In the context of mortgage-backed securitization, it is clear that registration of
the notes and mortgages in the name of the trustee for the trust is necessary for effective
transfer to the trust. Within the Statutes of New York governing Trusts, Estates Powers
and Trusts Law (EPTL) section 7-2.1(c) authorizes investment trusts to acquire real or
personal property “in the name of the trust as such name is designated in the instrument
creating said trust.” Further, the actual contracts of the parties, which include the
custodial agreements, the mortgage loan purchase agreements, and the trust instrument
known as the “pooling and servicing agreement,” prescribe a very specific method of
transfer of the notes and mortgages to the Trust. Because the method of transfer is set
forth in the Trust instrument, it is not subject to any variance or exception.16
14 In an action against the individual defendant as trustee, based on the theory of breach of fiduciary obligation, the
complaint was properly dismissed on the ground that he had acquired no title or separate control of the goods and,
hence, there was no actual trust over the property to breach. Kermani v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 4 A.D.2d 603 (N.Y.
App. Div. 3d Dep’t 1957).
The Trust
documents require that the promissory notes and mortgages be transferred to the
Trustee, which under New York trust law requires valid delivery. The question then
arises — “What constitutes valid delivery to the Trustee?”
15 Wells Fargo Bank v. Farmer, 2008 N.Y. Misc Lexis 3248.
16Courts may neither ignore the actual provisions of transaction documents nor create contractual remedies that were
omitted from the governing contracts by the contracting parties. See Schmidt v. Magnetic Head Corp., 468 N.Y.S.2d
649, 654 (N.Y. App.Div. 1983) (““It is fundamental that courts enforce contracts and do not rewrite them . . . An
obligation undertaken by one of the parties that is intended as a promise . . . should be expressed as such, and not left
to implication.”” (citations omitted)); Morlee Sales Corp. v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 172 N.E.2d 280, 282 (N.Y.
1961) (““[T]he courts may not by construction add or excise terms . . . and thereby ‘make a new contract for the
parties under the guise of interpret[ation].’““ (quoting Heller v. Pope, 250 N.E. 881, 882 (N.Y. 1928))
- 12 -
When the requirements of transfer to the trustee are viewed in the context of the
corporate or business trust indenture, more information about compliance with these
requirements becomes apparent. One must first understand that
“[t]he corporate trustee has very little in common with the ordinary trustee . . . .
The trustee under a corporate indenture . . . has his [or her] rights and duties
defined, not by the fiduciary relationship, but exclusively by the terms of the
agreement. His [or her] status is more that of a stakeholder than one of a
trustee.”17
Indeed, “[a]n indenture trustee is unlike the ordinary trustee. In contrast with the latter,
some cases have confined the duties of the indenture trustee to those set forth in the
indenture.”18 The indenture trustee, it has been said, resembles a stakeholder whose
obligations are defined by the terms of the indenture agreement.19 Moreover,“[i]t is
settled that the duties and powers of a trustee are defined by the terms of the trust
agreement and are tempered only by the fiduciary obligation of loyalty to the
beneficiaries”.20
The clear import of these cases and statutes is that the delivery of an asset to a
trustee under the terms of a corporate indenture requires strict compliance with the
mandatory transfer terms of the trust indenture. Thus the Trustee in this case can only
take delivery in strict compliance with the terms of the PSA/Trust document. Further,
given that New York Estates Powers and Trusts Law section 7-2.1(c) authorizes a
trustee to acquire property “in the name of the trust as such name is designated in the
17 AG Capital Funding Partners, L.P. v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 5766, 7 (N.Y. 2008)
18Green v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co., 223 A.D. 12, 227 N.Y.S. 252 (1st Dept.), aff’d, 248 N.Y. 627 (1928);
Hazzard v. Chase National Bank, 159 Misc. 57, 287 N.Y.S. 541 (Sup. Ct. 1936), aff’d, 257 A.D. 950, 14 N.Y.S.2d
147 (1st Dept.), aff’d, 282 N.Y. 652, cert. denied, 311 U.S. 708 (1940).
19 See Meckel v. Continental Resources, 758 F.2d 811, 816 (2d Cir. 1985) as cited in Ambac Indem. Corp. v.
Bankers Trust Co., 151 Misc. 2d 334, 336 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1991).
20see, United States Trust Co. v First Nat’l City Bank, 57 A.D.2d 285, 295-296, aff’d 45 NY2d 869; Restatement
[Second] of Trusts § 186, comments a, d) as cited in In re IBJ Schroder Bank & Trust Co., 271 A.D.2d 322 (N.Y.
App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2000).
- 13 -
instrument creating said trust property,” there should be little doubt that for transfer to
an trustee to be effective, the property must be registered in the name of the trustee for
the particular trust. Trust property cannot be, as the Defendant argues, held with
incomplete endorsements and assignments that do not indicate that the property is held
in trust by a trustee for a specific beneficiary trust. In fact, it is clear in the law of New
York that an attempt to transfer to a trust which fails to specify both a trustee and a
beneficiary is ineffective as a conveyance to the Trust. “The failure to name a
beneficiary for the Trustee renders the assignment without merit.”21
This position is further supported logically in the common law of New York by
the following propositions:
(1) “Until the delivery to the trustee is performed by the settlor, or until the
securities are definitely ascertained by the declaration of the settlor, when he himself is
the trustee, no rights of the beneficiary in a trust created without consideration arise”.22
(2) The delivery necessary to consummate a gift must be as perfect as the nature
of the property and the circumstances and surroundings of the parties will reasonably
permit; there must be a change of dominion and ownership; intention or mere words
cannot supply the place of an actual surrender of control and authority over the thing
intended to be given.23
21 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Farmer, 2008 NY Slip Op 51133U, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008)
It is the consummation of the donor’s intent to give that
completes the transaction. Intention alone, no matter how fully established, is of no avail
22(cf. Riegel v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 266 App. Div. 586; Matter of Gurlitz [Lynde], 105 Misc. 30,
aff’d 190 App. Div. 907, supra; Marx v. Marx, 5 Misc 2d 42) as cited in Sussman v. Sussman, 61 A.D.2d 838 (N.Y.
App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1978).
23Vincent v. Putnam, 248 N.Y. 76, 82-84 (N.Y. 1928).
- 14 -
without the consummated act of delivery.24
“If the donor delivers the property to the third person simply for the purpose of
his delivering it to the donee as the agent of the donor, the gift is not complete
until the property has actually been delivered to the donee. Such a delivery is not
absolute, for the ordinary principle of agency applies, by which the donor can
revoke the authority of the agent, and resume possession of the property, at any
time before the authority is executed.””
How could one logically argue that
delivering a promissory note endorsed in blank (making it bearer paper) into a trustee’s
vault is “delivery beyond the authority and control of the donor” when the vault is
managed by the agent of the donor? If the donor were to claim that the promissory note
were its property, not the trustee’s, there would be no evidentiary basis for the trustee to
claim ownership. Accordingly, New York law expressly requires that for property to be
validly delivered to a trust, the property must pass completely out of the control of the
donor (and its agents):
25
Another case addressing this issue holds that “In order that delivery to a third person
shall be effective, he must be the agent of the donee. Delivery to an agent of the donor is
ineffective, as the agency could be terminated before delivery to the intended donee.”26
Trustees for securitizations often occupy many roles simultaneously and
conflictingly both as document custodians and trustees for myriad thousands of
securitizations as well as for various parties who are active in the securitization process
including originators, servicers, sponsors and depositors. Accordingly, it is
inconceivable that anything other than registration into “the name of the trust as such
24Phillippsen v. Emigrant Indus.Sav. Bank, 86 N.Y.S.2d 133, 137-138 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1948). (Beaver v. Beaver,
supra, 117 N.Y. 421, 428, 22 N.E. 940, 941, 6 L.R.A. 403, 15 Am.St.Rep. 531).
25 (See, also, Grant Trust & Savings Co. v. Tucker, 49 Ind. App. 345; Furenes v. Eide, 109 Ia. 511; Dickeschied v.
Exchange Bank, 28 W. Va. 340; Love v. Francis, 63 Mich. 181; [**428] Merchant v. Building Co. [***15] , 17
Ohio Circuit Ct. 190.)
26 In re Nat’l Commer. Bank & Trust Co., 257 A.D. 868, 869-870 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 1939) citing Vincent v.
Rix, supra v. Rix, supra; Bump v. Pratt, 84 Hun, 201.
- 15 -
name is designated in the instrument creating said trust property”27
This point was recently slammed home to the public consciousness in a
watershed decision out of the State of Massachusetts. On January 7, 2011, the Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts—the highest court in that state—rendered a unanimous
verdict in a case captioned U.S. Natl. Bank Assn., Trustee, v. Ibanez, For ABFC 2005-
0PT 1 Trust, ABFC Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005-0PT 1, No. SJC-10694,
(Mass. Jan. 7, 2011). While that ruling is of course not binding upon this court, it is
very much contrary to the mortgage securitization industry’s position in cases involving
the foreclosure of mortgage loans which have allegedly been securitized. The facts of
the case in Massachusetts and the facts of this instant case are similar. Both the
Massachusetts and the Horace cases concern an entity seeking to foreclose on the
mortgagor when the foreclosing entities did not possess the underlying promissory note
at the time of the foreclosure (or attempted foreclosure in the Horace situation). The case
was a ruling on two consolidated cases – both cases were filed by banks (as trustees for
could ever qualify
as delivery to any particular securitization trust. Absent such registration, there would
be nothing that would indicate which of thousands of trusts in the care of a trustee a
particular promissory note might belong to or if it were the personal property of the
trustee itself. Absent such registration, a promissory note would simply be bearer paper,
and thus the property of anyone who obtained possession of it. Further, if anything less
constituted delivery, why are our courts overwhelmed with robo-signed mortgage
assignments and affidavits expressing legally-impossible transfers into the specific trusts
long after the trusts have closed for funding?
27 EPTL 7-2.1(c)
- 16 -
two separate trusts) to quiet title on properties they had foreclosed and purchased at the
foreclosure sale to satisfy the mortgagor’s debt. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court held that neither bank proved that its trust owned the mortgages when they
foreclosed on the homes; therefore, neither had title to the foreclosed properties and that
their foreclosures were void. Effectively, this put the borrowers back into the place they
were before the foreclosure. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did not tell the
homeowners they are allowed to shirk their obligation to pay their mortgages, which are
still outstanding, valid obligations. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did,
however, sharply instruct the banks that they must have the proper documentation which
demonstrates a valid right to foreclose before a foreclosure can be carried out. It is well
worth noting the conclusion of the Massachusetts Ibanez opinion. The Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court noted that “The legal principles and requirements we set forth
are well established in our case law and our statutes. All that has changed is the [banks’] apparent failure to abide by those principles and requirements in the rush to sell
mortgage-backed securities.” Just as the principles and requirements of Massachusetts
law are well-founded, so too are those of New York law, and they should be upheld even
if adherence to the law is inconvenient for banks rushing to sell mortgage-backed
securities.
B-3 THE INTENT TO TRANSFER AN ASSET TO THE TRUST IS NOT A
TRANSFER TO THE TRUST
The contents of these statutes, cases and contracts lead to one inescapable
conclusion: the intent of the parties and the requirements of the contracts were that the
assets be conveyed to the Trusts by the Trust closing dates. For a transfer to any
- 17 -
particular trust to be effective, there should have been a registration of the assets into
“the name of the trust as such name is designated in the instrument creating said trust
property”—this is the only method by which these assets could have been “divested
from the possession and title” of the donors.
In response to the lucidity of the controlling law on this issue, the mortgage
foreclosure industry has chosen to argue that it is clear that it was the parties’“intent” to
transfer these assets and therefore “no court” would ever declare that these assets were
not transferred to these trusts. The controlling law is overwhelmingly against the
industry in this position. The failure to deliver the notes and mortgages to these trusts as
required by the trust instruments is a default under the terms of every agreement that
these parties executed, including their agreements for payment guarantees with the
monoline bond insurers. The securitization industry chose to create its securitization
trusts under New York law precisely because the law was ancient and settled. Now that
the actions of the foreclosure industry contradicts that law, parties such as the defendant
trust are left to argue hope against precedent. The well-settled New York trust law
provides that “A mere intention to make a gift which has not been carried into effect,
confers no right upon the intended beneficiary. There must be also delivery beyond
the power of further control and dominion.”28
28(Vincent v. Rix, 248 N.Y. 76, 85 v. Rix, 248 N.Y. 76, 85; Matter of Green, 247 App. Div. 540; McCarthy v. Pieret,
281 N.Y. 407, 409.) as cited by In re FIRST TRUST & DEPOSIT CO., 264 A.D. 940, 941 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th
Dep’t 1942)
Equity will not help out an incomplete
delivery. If the agent of the donor has failed to make the delivery expected equity will
- 18 -
not declare him a trustee for the donee.29
“In determining whether there has been a valid delivery, the situation of the
subject of the gift must be considered. Thus if it is actually present, and capable
of delivery without serious effort, it is not too much to say that there must be an
actual delivery, although the donor need not in person or by agent hand the
article to the donee, if the latter assumes the possession.”
“Thus, Thornton on Gifts and Advancements
(§140) notes:
There was absolutely nothing in the physical nature of the papers to be delivered in this
case, or in the physical condition or the surroundings of the donor, that made a
symbolical delivery necessary.”30 It is true that the old rule requiring an actual delivery
of the thing given has been very largely relaxed, but a symbolical delivery is sufficient
only when the conditions are so adverse to actual delivery as to make a symbolical
delivery as nearly perfect and complete as the circumstances will allow.31
Further, the failure to convey to a trust per the controlling trust document is not a
matter that may be cured by the breaching party. New York law is unflinchingly clear
that a trustee has only the authority granted by the instrument under which he holds,
either deed or will. This fundamental rule has existed from the beginning and is still
law.32 An indenture trustee is unlike the ordinary trustee. In contrast with the latter,
some cases have confined the duties of the indenture trustee to those set forth in the
indenture.33
29Vincent v. Putnam, 248 N.Y. 76, 82-84 (N.Y. 1928)
From this context springs the seminal rule of law that effectively causes the
parties to the Trust agreement and the Trust to be “gored by their own bull”. New
30In re Van Alstyne, 207 N.Y. 298, 309-310 (N.Y. 1913).
31 In re Van Alstyne, 207 N.Y. 298, 309-310 (N.Y. 1913).
32Allison & Ver Valen Co. v. McNee, 170 Misc. 144, 146 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1939).
33Ambac Indem. Corp. v. Bankers Trust Co., 151 Misc. 2d 334, 336 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1991).
- 19 -
York’s law is so well-settled regarding the limitations of a trustee’s power to act that
New York’s Estates Powers and Trust Law Section 7-2.4 states:
§ 7-2.4 Act of trustee in contravention of trust
If the trust is expressed in the instrument creating the estate of the trustee, every
sale, conveyance or other act of the trustee in contravention of the trust, except as
authorized by this article and by any other provision of law, is void.
Therefore, the trustees for these trusts may only acquire assets in the manner set forth in the trust
instrument and may not acquire assets in violation of the trust instrument. To the extent that any
assets were not conveyed to these trusts as required and when required by the trust instrument,
they are not assets of the trusts and the trustee cannot correct this deficiency now since the
funding period provided in the Trust instruments passed many years ago. The attempt to acquire
assets by these trusts which violate the terms of the Trust instrument are void. Therefore, late
assignments, improper chains of title, late endorsements, improper chains of title in the
endorsements and the attempt to transfer to the trusts by foreclosure deed are just a number of
the many examples of actions which are void if taken by a party to the indenture who is
attempting to transfer property to the Trustee for the Trust in violation of the trust instrument.
C. THE TRUST NEVER PROPERLY ACQUIRED THE MORTGAGE NOTE AND
THE TRUST CANNOT CURE ITS FATAL STANDING DEFECT
Under New York law there is no trust over property that has not been properly transferred
to a trust. The Defendant Trust stated to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in filings
under oath that it has assets in excess of $400 million.34
34
To acquire assets, the Trust must be
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1352655/000088237706000801/d431341.htm(last viewed 1/7/10)
- 20 -
funded in accordance with the requirements of the PSA/Trust documents. The pertinent terms of
the agreement are found at §2.01 (Conveyance of Trust Fund) of the PSA.35 This section details
how the mortgage notes in the instant case were transferred from Encore Credit Corp. (as
Originator) to EMC Mortgage Corp. (as the Sponsor and Master Servicer) to Bear Stearns Asset
Backed Securities I LLC (the Depositor) to LaSalle Bank National Association (the Trustee).
Bear Stearns as the Depositor was required to deliver to LaSalle the original mortgage note
showing an unbroken chain of endorsements from the original payee to the person endorsing it to
the Trustee. The person endorsing to the Trustee was the Bear Stearns entity.36
In the discovery provided to the Plaintiff, the only endorsement to the Horace mortgage
note is a blank endorsement “pay to the order of ______ without recourse Encore Credit Corp, A
California Corporation,” signed by an unreadable name with an unreadable title.37
No later than May 29, 2006 there should have been — at a minimum — endorsements
from Encore Credit Corp. to EMC Mortgage Corp., then EMC Mortgage Corp. to Bear Stearns,
then Bear Stearns to LaSalle.
The last
assignment of the mortgage was a blank endorsement with a stamp by Encore — nothing has
been submitted by the Trust to the Court indicating that Encore ever assigned the mortgage to
any other entity. Thus, based on the documents in this case, Encore, not LaSalle, is the mortgage
holder. LaSalle does not have the authority to foreclose the mortgage.
38
35 Bates #: Lasalle/Horace 0067.
And yet, there is no “showing” of an unbroken chain of
endorsements in the documents provided to the Plaintiff. The affidavit of Thomas J. Adams,
expert for the Plaintiff, testified to this:
36See Bates #: LaSalle/Horace 0067-0068: ““(A) in blank or to the order of ““LaSalle Bank National Association, as
Trustee for Certificateholders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LLC, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series
2006-EC2,”” or (B) in the case of a loan registered on the MERS system, in blank, and in each case showing an
unbroken chain of endorsements from the original payee thereof to the Person endorsing it to the Trustee, . . .””
37Bates #: Horace v. LaSalle 29.
38 Plaintiff states ““at a minimum”” because there may have been more transfers.
- 21 -
“According to the requirements set forth in the Trust Agreement I would expect to
see a series of endorsements of the promissory note reflective of each party who
had an interest in the promissory note reflective of each party who had an
ownership interest in the promissory note culminating with a blank endorsement
from the depositor at the very minimum.”39
The Trust never possessed the mortgage note per the terms of the PSA (Pooling and
Service Agreement). Further, in the PSA’s exhibits, Exhibit One sets forth the contents of the
collateral file for each mortgage loan that is trust property and further includes a final specific
endorsement to the Trustee for the specific trust in this case to effect a final transfer to the Trust
and to make the Horace promissory note trust property.
Any attempt by LaSalle, or Bank of America, to transfer the promissory note to the Trust
at this late date would fail for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that the closing date of
February 28, 2006 passed nearly 5 years ago. By the terms of the Trust and the applicable
provision of the Internal Revenue Code incorporated into and a part of the Trust agreement, the
promissory note cannot be transferred to the Trust.40
D. THE TRUST IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE MONEY SECURED BY THE HORACE
MORTGAGE AND CANNOT FORECLOSE
Because the uncontradicted evidence in the
case is that the Horace loan has never been conveyed to the Trust and a conveyance to the Trust
at this time would be void as violating the terms of the PSA the Court is left with one clear and
inescapable proposition: The Trust has never owned the Horace promissory note and the Trust
can never own the Horace promissory note.
Per Ala. Code §35-10-12, the power to sell lands is held by the person who “ . . . by
assignment or otherwise, becomes entitled to the money thus secured.” As outlined above, the
39Affidavit and Testimony of Thomas J. Adams, ¶ 12.
40Affidavit and Testimony of Thomas J. Adams, ¶17.
- 22 -
Trust has not provided documentation to show that it was or is entitled to the money secured by
the mortgage of Horace’s property. “The defendant Trust [LaSalle] has offered no proof of
ownership and the collateral file offered by the defendant Trust clearly demonstrates that this
loan was not securitized nor was it transferred to this Trust.”41
CONCLUSION
Based on the law, the terms of the Pooling and Service Agreement, the failure to show
the proper chain of endorsements, and the arguments contained herein, Plaintiff moves this Court
to permanently enjoin LaSalle Bank National Association (and Bank of America as its successorin-
interest) from foreclosing on the property at 3745 Knowles Road, Phenix City because they
have failed to make the required showing that they are or ever were or ever could be the holder
of the mortgage promissory note.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
/s/ Nicholas H. Wooten
Nicholas H. Wooten – Ala. Bar No. Woo084
(Attorney for Plaintiff)
P.O. Box 3889
Auburn, AL 36831-3389
Tel. (334) 887-3000
Fax (334) 821-7720
OF COUNSEL:
Mr. Nick Wooten
WOOTEN LAW FIRM, P.C.
P.O. Box 3389
Auburn, Al. 36831
(334) 887-3000
41 Affidavit and Testimony of Thomas J. Adams, ¶14 and deposition testimony page 140, lines 4-8.
- 23 -
JINKS, CROW, & DICKSON, P.C.
PO Box 350
219 Prairie Street North
Union Springs, AL 36089
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing upon the Defendants by
providing an electronic copy on this the 13th day of January 2011.
All counsel of Record
_/s/ Nick Wooten
OF COUNSEL

Foreclosure Loophole

If you are a homeowner in financial trouble facing foreclosure, there are several foreclosure loopholes you can utilize to stop the foreclosure and give a serious push back against your lender. These foreclosure loopholes include, but are not limited to the following strategies we employ for clients:

TILA and Regulation Z require specific disclosures to be made to you prior to and at the time of settlement on your mortgage loan. If the loan is secured by your primary residence there are even more rigorous requirements.

If you did not receive 2 copies of your right to rescind or right to cancel, -OR- You did not receive the federally mandated booklets on adjustable rate notes (in the event your mortgage is an ARM), -OR- the finance charge on your final TILA
(Truth in Lending Act) disclosure is understated by more than $35.00. You are still in the 3 day “cooling off” period that follows settlement because your mortgage company never perfected your mortgage. During this period you can rescind
or cancel your mortgage. (Fill out contact form to the right for more information)

<
If you’re a homeowner and are being threatened with foreclosure, here’s a way you can perhaps avoid it. This foreclosure
loophole might be your way out of foreclosure. If your mortgage documents violate the TILA, which requires lenders to make certain disclosures to borrowers about the true costs of a loan, then, depending on the violation(s), you may have the right to:

• Rescind the loan- or cancel the loan
• Recover or offset amounts already paid including interest, finance charges and closing costs, origination fees, commissions and illegal Yield Spread Premiums (YSPs)
• Collect potential statutory damages of $1,000 per violation, plus your attorney’s fees

TILA regulations require that lenders to disclose to borrowers the true cost of credit so they can comparison shop for the best loan. This is the primary purpose of the Act. Required disclosures include the Annual Percentage Rate (APR), finance charges, total payments, the amount financed and the payment schedule. The tolerance for deviations from accurate finance charge and APR rate calculations are very rigorous and the lenders often misstate this estimate and understate the finance charge by more than the $35.00. <—–THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, PEOPLE!

The Act also provides home mortgage borrowers with an automatic three-day “cooling off” period to decide whether or not they want to rescind the loan when the loan was s a refinancing event , a second mortgage, a home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC) or some form of home improvement credit sale. This cooling off period, as stated above, is automatically extended for three years, extending the strong>rescission period if the lender violated the disclosure requirements. The disclosure requirements state clearly that the homeowner must receive:

1) 2 copies of the Right to Rescind

2) These Right to Rescind disclosures must be in the correct format and not just thrown onto a financing form or placed onto another disclosure.
Rescission is an important foreclosure loophole that you may be able to exercise if your disclosures are not in order and in accordance with TILA. Give us a shout if you wish to have your loan documents forensically audited.

Jeff: 540-341-1481

Questions? We offer a free mortgage review to see if your mortgage contains violations BEFORE we will ask you for one dollar. This is part of what sets us apart from other auditors.

info@LegalForensicAuditors.com

Nothing on this entire site is to be construed as legal advice. It is only the opinion of the author.  If you are a Virginia resident we do have a Virginia RESPA litigation attorney in our office who will be happy to discuss your mortgage issues with you.

Our offices are located in Virginia, but we have clients in Florida, Maryland, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio,  Illinois, Delaware, California and Washington DC.  Law firms use LFA to Forensically Audit their client mortgages.

If you are behind on your mortgage, in jeopardy of losing your home, cannot afford your current payment because you expected to refinance but cannot, tead the step by step QWR page after filling out this form. We will contact you within 48 hours. We don’t spam and your information is completely private here. We are located in Virginia.

I have long been researching quiet title actions against lenders who have placed MERS as the beneficiary on a deed of trust, and where the note has been separated from the deed of trust as the lender sells the note to another party or stream of additional parties through the securitization process.      When MERS is listed as the beneficiary or nominee of the lender and the deed of trust states that only the actual true lender has the ability to move the deed to another party through a foreclosure action, MERS is simply not a party of Interest.  MERS has no skin in the game.   They have received no payments nor have they paid any money to any party in the mortgage transaction.    They have no beneficial interest in either a foreclosure, an reo sale, a mortgage modification or a quiet title action against the lender.  They are very simply a straw man variable to be manipulated at will by the lenders and their attorneys allowing them to state that MERS is foreclosing on behalf of whatever party they say as most of the times they have no clue who really owns the note nor do they have any proof of ownership .    MERS is a piece of alchemy created by lenders, owned by lenders to allow a huge clusterfuck of mortgage notes to make no difference when servicers go to foreclose on homes as the real estate market precipitously dropped as they knew it would.   MERS allows the mortgage lenders to take a “Lets foreclose on them all and sort out the money later” attitude.     There are  a vast array of cases across jurisdictional boundaries upholding  the 1872 US Supreme Court precedent Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, at 274, including Landmark v Kesler in kansas which states that when the note is separated from the deed as in the case of a MERS nomination, the deed becomes a nullity and the remedy is Quiet Title.     read this from mr. Neil Garfield.    Plan your attack accordingly.     (I am not an attorney and do not give legal advice)   We do have a few great pleadings though.    Fill out the form to the right if you want a free copy of our quiet title pleading.   Let us know if you are an attorney or a distressed homeowner.     We may be able to find you great local counsel.   We have counsel in California filing quiet title actions.     Our california quiet title action is based on the model used in Utah by Walter keane to nullify the trust deed.    Although Als office is in Southern California we have relationships with attorneys throughout the entire state of California for appearances required for a California Quiet Title action

PRIMARY CAUSE OF ACTION – THE DEED OF TRUST IS NULL
QUIET TITLE IS THEREFORE REMEDY TO THAT NULLITY

1. Between July to August 2006, a now-bankrupt Countrywide Home Loans Inc. in conjunction with US Bank N.A., illegally decoupled (separated) ownership of a note,which listed Countrywide Home Loans Inc., – from ownership of the Arizona-recorded Deed of Trust, which in contrast listed the ‘beneficiary’ as MERS. (Maricopa County Recorder #2006-10000). This now-bankrupt Countrywide Home Loans Inc. note was created in the name a previous owner of Plaintiff’s property at _____________.

2. During this origination period, Countrywide Home Loans Inc. and US Bank N.A. well knew long-standing black letter mortgage law – the 1872 US Supreme Court precedent Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, at 274, inter alia, which states any separation of the Note from the Deed of Trust is a Nullity.

“The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity”.

3. In the last 24 months, Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, at 274 has been repeatedly used as foundational precedent throughout this county, as the basis for illegal nullity in numerous courts including the Kansas Supreme Court in Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kessler, 216 P.3d 158 (2009); and the Supreme Court of Arkansas in Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. Inc. v. Southwest Homes of Arkansas, 2009 WL 723182 (2009), inter alia, and many others.

COUNT I
QUIET TITLE, A.R.S. § 12-1101, et seq.

4. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs.
5. Plaintiff holds title to its subject property at _________________.
6. Plaintiff is credibly informed and believes that these non-real party(ies) in interest Defendants make some claim adverse to Plaintiff.
7. A null security agreement is unenforceable for foreclosure or cloud on title in Arizona. Quiet Title is the only remaining option.
8. Defendants’ Decoupling Separation violates the long-standing precedence of Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271.
9. Said Deed of Trust was indeed separated from the note, one or more times, making it null, deficient, and illegal.
10. Said nullity is an improper cloud on title.
11. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that judgment be entered against Defendants as follows:
A. Judgment establishing Plaintiff’s estate as described above;
B. Judgment barring and forever estopping Defendants from having or claiming any right or title to the premises adverse to Plaintiff;
C. Judgment for Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs;
D. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Excerpt from Arizona Quiet title action…    Interesting

We are actively looking for TILA and RESPA familiar attorneys WHO HAVE ALSO filed quiet title actions in the following cities:    Please contact us if you are a bankruptcy or litigation attorney in one of these areas who  files rescission actions or quiet title actions against mortgage lenders and wish to partner with a real forensic mortgage auditing shop.

New York New York
Los Angeles California
Chicago Illinois
Houston Texas
Phoenix Arizona
Philadelphia Pennsylvania
San Antonio Texas
Dallas Texas
San Diego California
San Jose California
Detroit Michigan
San Francisco California
Jacksonville Florida
Indianapolis  Indiana
Austin Texas
Columbus Ohio
Fort Worth Texas
Charlotte North Carolina
Memphis Tennessee
Baltimore  Maryland
Boston  Massachusetts
El Paso Texas
Milwaukee Wisconsin
Denver Colorado
Seattle Washington
Nashville  Tennessee
Washington District of Columbia
Las Vegas Nevada
Portland Oregon
Louisville  Kentucky
Oklahoma City Oklahoma
Tucson Arizona
Atlanta Georgia
Albuquerque New Mexico
Kansas City  Missouri
Fresno California
Sacramento California
Long Beach California
Mesa Arizona
Omaha Nebraska
Cleveland Ohio
Virginia Beach Virginia
Miami Florida
Oakland California
Raleigh North Carolina
Tulsa Oklahoma
Minneapolis Minnesota
Colorado Springs Colorado
Honolulu  Hawaii
Arlington Texas
Wichita Kansas
St. Louis  Missouri
Tampa Florida
Santa Ana California
New Orleans  Louisiana
Anaheim California
Cincinnati Ohio
Bakersfield California
Aurora Colorado
Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
Riverside California
Toledo Ohio
Stockton California
Corpus Christi Texas
Lexington Kentucky
St. Paul Minnesota
Anchorage Alaska
Newark New Jersey
Buffalo New York
Plano Texas
Henderson Nevada
Lincoln Nebraska
Fort Wayne Indiana
Glendale Arizona
Greensboro North Carolina
Chandler Arizona
St. Petersburg Florida
Jersey City New Jersey
Scottsdale Arizona
Norfolk Virginia
Madison Wisconsin
Orlando Florida
Birmingham Alabama
Baton Rouge Louisiana
Durham North Carolina
Laredo Texas
Lubbock Texas
Chesapeake  Virginia
Chula Vista California
Garland Texas
Winston-Salem North Carolina
North Las Vegas Nevada
Reno Nevada
Gilbert Arizona
Hialeah Florida
Arlington  Virginia
Akron Ohio
Irvine California
Rochester New York
Boise Idaho
Modesto California
Fremont California
Montgomery Alabama
Spokane Washington
Richmond  Virginia
Yonkers New York
Irving Texas
Shreveport Louisiana
San Bernardino California
Tacoma Washington
Glendale California
Des Moines Iowa
Augusta  Georgia
Grand Rapids Michigan
Huntington Beach California
Mobile Alabama
Moreno Valley California
Little Rock Arkansas
Amarillo Texas
Columbus Georgia
Oxnard California
Fontana California
Knoxville Tennessee
Fort Lauderdale Florida
Worcester Massachusetts
Salt Lake City Utah
Newport News Virginia
Huntsville Alabama
Tempe Arizona
Brownsville Texas
Fayetteville North Carolina
Jackson Mississippi
Tallahassee Florida
Aurora Illinois
Ontario California
Providence Rhode Island
Overland Park Kansas
Rancho Cucamonga California
Chattanooga Tennessee
Oceanside California
Santa Clarita California
Garden Grove California
Vancouver Washington
Grand Prairie Texas
Peoria Arizona
Rockford Illinois
Cape Coral Florida
Springfield Missouri
Santa Rosa California
Sioux Falls South Dakota
Port St. Lucie Florida
Dayton Ohio
Salem Oregon
Pomona California
Springfield Massachusetts
Eugene Oregon
Corona California
Pasadena Texas
Joliet Illinois
Pembroke Pines Florida
Paterson New Jersey
Hampton  Virginia
Lancaster California
Alexandria  Virginia
Salinas California
Palmdale California
Naperville Illinois
Pasadena California
Kansas City Kansas
Hayward California
Hollywood Florida
Lakewood Colorado
Torrance California
Syracuse New York
Escondido California
Fort Collins Colorado
Bridgeport Connecticut
Orange California
Warren Michigan
Elk Grove California
Savannah Georgia
Mesquite Texas
Sunnyvale California
Fullerton California
McAllen Texas
Cary North Carolina
Cedar Rapids Iowa
Sterling Heights Michigan
Columbia South Carolina
Coral Springs Florida
Carrollton Texas
Elizabeth New Jersey
Hartford Connecticut
Waco Texas
Bellevue Washington
New Haven Connecticut
West Valley City Utah
Topeka Kansas
Thousand Oaks California
El Monte California
Independence Missouri
McKinney Texas
Concord California
Visalia California
Simi Valley California
Olathe Kansas
Clarksville Tennessee
Denton Texas
Stamford Connecticut
Provo Utah
Springfield Illinois
Killeen Texas
Abilene Texas
Evansville Indiana
Gainesville Florida
Vallejo California
Ann Arbor Michigan
Peoria Illinois
Lansing Michigan
Lafayette Louisiana
Thornton Colorado
Athens  Georgia
Flint Michigan
Inglewood California
Roseville California
Charleston South Carolina
Beaumont Texas
Victorville California
Santa Clara California
Costa Mesa California
Miami Gardens Florida
Manchester New Hampshire
Miramar Florida
Downey California
Arvada Colorado
Allentown Pennsylvania
Westminster Colorado
Waterbury Connecticut
Norman Oklahoma
Midland Texas
Elgin Illinois
West Covina California
Clearwater Florida
Cambridge Massachusetts
Pueblo Colorado
West Jordan Utah
Round Rock Texas
Billings Montana
Erie Pennsylvania
South Bend Indiana
San Buenaventura (Ventura) California
Fairfield California
Lowell Massachusetts
Norwalk California
Burbank California
Richmond California
Pompano Beach Florida
High Point North Carolina
Murfreesboro Tennessee
Lewisville Texas
Richardson Texas
Daly City California
Berkeley California
Gresham Oregon
Wichita Falls Texas
Green Bay Wisconsin
Davenport Iowa
Palm Bay Florida
Columbia Missouri
Portsmouth Virginia
Rochester Minnesota
Antioch California
Wilmington North Carolina

A Quiet Title Lawsuit is known under common law as a suit in equity and is filed for the purpose of establishing the rightful ownership of a piece of real property such as a parcel of land or a home.  The need to file a quiet title lawsuit results from situations where there are multiple parties who are claiming rightful ownership of the same piece of land or the same house.   And in the case of this article a quiet title action can be used to fight a pretender parties claim to interest in the property when they actually have no standing nor capacity to foreclose on a property.     It is used when a loan has been transferred to multiple parties or potentially securitized in a CDO or MBS mortgage backed security and the transfer into the pool of assets is faulty as a result of lack of proper endorsements, violation of the pooling and servicing agreement or if the parties simply do not have the note nor any other proof of financial interest in the note.    Often when it appears that MERS is foreclosing on real property, an attorney will object as MERS has admitted in deposition and publically that they have no financial interest in the notes they claim to be foreclosing upon.

Quiet title lawsuits can arise from conflicts between parties that are part of the same family or between parties who claim ownership in situation where a deed has be improperly or incompletely recorded with the registry of deeds or other land registration office.  Quiet title lawsuits are also common when a party that purchased a parcel of property at a tax sale, sheriff’s sale or judicial sale attempts to resell the parcel.     Tax purchases may use quiet title actions to obtain clear title in order to obtain title insurance.    It may very well become harder and harder for parties purchasing REO to obtain title insurance as a result of faulty foreclosures where MERS is claiming, without capacity to be the foreclosing party.

When a quiet title lawsuit is filed in a court that has jurisdiction to hear the case, the outcome will determine the party who will be established as the rightful owner, and will terminate, or quiet, the claims of ownership from all other parties.

When Are Quiet Title Lawsuits Filed?

Quiet title lawsuits are filed where there is a legitimate claim of ownership by competing parties to one piece of land.  The need to file such a lawsuit occurs when the previous owner has either improperly or incompletely conveyed a piece of land by including things such as restrictions on alienation (transferability of the property) or easements on the land.

A quiet title lawsuit is also appropriate in situations where there is not a proper recording or registration method in use to establish rightful ownership.  This is often the claim when MERS is involved.   Quiet title lawsuits are also appropriate following a tax sale, sheriff’s sale or judicial sale so that the purchasing party, the new owner, knows with absolute certainty that no other parties may ever seek to reclaim the purchased property or impede a sale, modification or transfer in the future.

Every state has different rules and laws when it comes to establishing ownership, notice and recording requirements, but  if a registry of deeds has records on file for a particular parcel, it is unlikely that a quiet title lawsuit will be fruitful unless there exists a disruption or discrepancy in the chain of title.    This can be the case when MERs is involved or when there are multiple trusts claiming to own the note.    A situation that occurs very very often.     It is the reasoln for a securitization audit.       The securitization audit tracks the real chain of title and exposes breaks in the chain for attorneys to exploit.     For the most part, the registration and recording system has taken away to need for quiet title lawsuits and judicial determinations of rightful ownership.

Can a Quiet Title Lawsuit Remove Liens on Property?

If the owner of a piece of property is unsuccessful in efforts to have deficiencies such as liens or other encumbrances removed from the title record, filing a quiet title lawsuit may help the owner to get the relief they are looking for.  A quiet title lawsuit has the ability for an owner to provide evidence that proves rightful ownership and shows satisfaction of any liens, such as a mechanics lien, mortgage or other lien judgment assessed against the value of the property.  Quiet titles can remove all encumbrances, or clouds to title, that potentially disrupt the sale of property.

Securitization Audits

A real estate attorney is essential to a party considering filing a quiet title lawsuit.  A securitization audit and an affidavit from an attorney or expert in the field of securitization is invaluable to the adjudication of quiet title cases.    In addition to the fact that the filing and arbitrating of the case requires the expertise of an attorney, an experienced lawyer is critical to craft winning arguments and father essential data and documents.  Since the property laws of every jurisdiction differ, it is very important to seek the assistance of an attorney who is experienced in the state or land court where the case will be litigated.    We have relationships with attorneys across the country with the expertise to file these cases and of course we do securitization auditing and litigation support for your action     Call us 540-341-1481 to join our legal network or to request help with your quiet title action..   You can also email info@legalforensicauditors.com

Thanks

We are looking for attorneys in the following areas to send quiet title business to..    akron, alabama, alaska, albany, annapolis, Arizona, arkansas, atlanta, auburn, Bad Mortgage, baha, baltimore, bankruptcy, binghamton, california, charleston, charlestown, charlotte, charlottesville, chicago, cincinnati, cleveland, Colorado, connecticut, corpus christi, culpeperForeclosure, dallas, deficiency judgment defense, Delaware, denver, DTI, DTI violation, durham, fairfax va, florida, foreclosure help, Forensic Audit, forensic auditor, forensic loan audit, Forensic Mortgage Audit, forensic mortgage auditor, fort worth, fraud, frederick, fredericksburg, georgia, gulf coast, hawaii, HOEPA, Home mortgage, houston, hud, idaho, illinois, indiana, indianapolis, iowa, jackson, jefferson, kansas, kansas city, kentucky, las vegas, leesburg, lincoln, los angeles, lousiana, maine, maryland, massachussetts, miami, michigan, minnesota, misouri, mississippi, missouri, montana, mortgage compliance attorney, Mortgage Modification, mortgage rip off, mortgage violations, nebraska, Nevada, new hampshire, new jersey, new mexicco, new orleans, new york, North Carolina, north dakota, Ohio, oklahoma, oregon, orlando, pennsylvania, pertersburg, phoenix, Predatory lending, RESPA, respa violation, rhode island, richmond, roanoke, sacrimento, san francisco, santa fe, short sale attorney, short sale expert, short sale negotiator, short sale realtor, south dakota, stop foreclosure, tennessee, texas, TILA, tila violation, unaffordable mortgage, upstate, utah, vermont, Virginia, warrenton, washington, washington dc, west virginia, winchester, wisconsin, wyoming

Lenders who might seek deficiency judgments currently on the implode list:

381. Assurity Financial Services, LLC
380. Premium Capital Funding, LLC dba TopDot Mortgage
379. First Regional Bank, Century City
378. Security Atlantic Mortgage Co.
377. Apex Lending, Inc.
376. Charter Bank, Santa Fe
375. Equitable Trust Mortgage Corp.
374. AmTrust Bank
373. Dynamic Capital Mortgage
372. Lend America / Lending Key
371. New South Federal Savings Bank
370. AME Financial Corp.
369. Envision Lending Group Inc.
368. Warren Bank
367. Stockton Turner & Company
366. The Lending Company Inc. – Wholesale
365. Capmark Financial Group Inc.
364. Northeast Mortgage Corp.
363. Security Mortgage Corporation
362. Windsor Capital Mortgage Corp.
361. First Rate Capital Corp.
360. StoneWater Mortgage Corp.
359. First National Bank of the South – Wholesale
358. Senderra Funding – Wholesale
357. Capstone Realty Advisors
356. Granite Mortgage, Inc.
355. Worldwide Financial Resources Inc.
354. Guaranty Bank – Warehouse
353. Colonial Bank
352. Corus Bank
351. America One Finance
350. Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. – Wholesale
349. 1st Reverse Financial Services LLC
348. HCI Mortgage
347. BankersWest Funding Corp.
346. American Partners Bank
345. Senior Lending Network
344. BankUnited, F.S.B.
343. Precision Financial, Inc.
342. Accredited Home Lenders, Lone Star Funds
341. Wells Fargo – Small-Cap Commercial
340. Guaranty Bank – GB Mortgage
339. American Sterling Bank
338. Chase Home Mortgage – Construction Lending
337. First Security Loan Corp
336. South Pacific Financial Corp. – Wholesale
335. Home Loan Consultants, Inc.
334. Central States Mortgage
333. HSBC – HFC & Beneficial
332. JPMorgan Chase – Warehouse
331. Ameritime Mortgage Co. LLC
330. Perfect Mortgage – PerfectFHA
329. EquiFirst
328. Residential Loan Centers of America
327. CU National Mortgage
326. Colonial National Mortgage – Wholesale
325. U.S. Mortgage Corp. – Retail
324. First Interstate Financial – Wholesale
323. Realty Mortgage Corp.
322. Vertice
321. USA Home Loans – Wholesale
320. SunTrust Mortgage – FHA Wholesale
319. First Federal – Wholesale
318. 21st Mortgage – Wholesale
317. J.B. Nutter & Co. – Wholesale
316. Homebridge Mortgage Bankers – Refinance.com
315. 1st Republic Mortgage Bankers
314. Superior Mortgage Corp – Wholesale
313. Wall Street Financial Corp – Wholesale
312. Fairfield Financial Mortgage Group
311. Chase Prime – Wholesale
310. Sunshine & Madison Mortgage Corp
309. Liberty One Lending
308. Frontier Investment Co.
307. Solstice Capital Group – HSBC
306. MortgageIT
305. HCL Finance Inc. – Wholesale
304. LIME Financial Svcs. – Wholesale
303. Mortgage Network Inc. – Wholesale
302. Fortes Financial – Wholesale
301. HSBC Mortgage Corp. – Wholesale
300. CBRE Realty Finance
299. Franklin Bank, SSB
298. Mortgage Lion, Inc. – Wholesale
297. HMS Capital, Inc.
296. CTX Mortgage Co. – Retail
295. Equity One Commercial
294. Coldstream Financial Svcs.
293. Banco Popular North America – Wholesale
292. Ace Mortgage Funding, LLC
291. E-Loan
290. Gateway Bank, F.S.B. – Wholesale
289. First Call Mortgage Co.
288. Downey Savings and Loan – Wholesale
287. Prospect’s Metrocities Mortgage – Wholesale
286. ComCor Mortgage – Wholesale
285. Chevy Chase Bank – Wholesale
284. Washington Mutual – Retail and Warehouse
283. Hometown Commercial Capital
282. Mid Atlantic Capital LLC
281. Kemper Mortgage, Inc.
280. Liberty Mortgage Funding Co.
279. Freddie Mac
278. Fannie Mae
277. Pacific Community Mortgage, Inc. – Gold Reverse, Inc.
276. Homecomings Financial, LLC
275. Thornburg Mortgage
274. CSB Mortgage
273. Carteret Mortgage Corporation
272. Western Residential Mortgage
271. Liberty Home Lending
270. Equipoint Financial Network, Inc.
269. Ideal Mortgage Bankers, Ltd. – Wholesale
268. Silver State Bank – Wholesale
267. Irwin Union Bank & Trust Co. – Wholesale
266. SunTrust Bank Equity Wholesale
265. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB – Wholesale
264. Lehman Brothers SBF
263. IndyMac Bancorp
262. Mortgages Ltd.
261. Wilmington Finance – Wholesale
260. Accredited Home Lenders, Home Funds Direct
259. Assured Lending Corp. – Wholesale
258. Homewide Lending Corporation
257. Vanguard Mortgage & Title, Inc.
256. Chase Home Equity – Wholesale
255. Chase Subprime – Wholesale
254. Evergreen Investment & Carnation Banc
253. Casa Blanca Mortgage/Shearson – Wholesale
252. Guaranty Bank – Correspondent
251. Citi Residential Lending
250. Montgomery Mortgage Capital Company
249. E*Trade Wholesale Lending
248. Shearson Financial Network, Inc.
247. American Bank Mortgage Group – Wholesale
246. AmeriBanc Corp.
245. Washington Mutual – Wholesale
244. Century Bank, F.S.B. – Wholesale
243. Diversified Mortgage, Inc.
242. National Wholesale Funding
241. Centennial Mortgage and Funding, Inc./Award Mortgage
240. Fidelity Home Mortgage Corp.
239. LMI Funding, Inc.
238. Millennium Mortgage – Wholesale
237. Origen Financial, Inc. (Correspondent)
236. CitiMortgage – Home Equity Wholesale
235. Bear Stearns Residential Mortgage
234. East West Mortgage Co. of VA
233. New Vision Residential Lending
232. Washington Savings Bank, F.S.B. – Wholesale
231. Macquarie Mortgages USA Inc.
230. Global Mortgage, Inc.
229. Unique Mortgage Solutions (UMS, LLC)
228. First Franklin – Merrill Lynch
227. First National Mortgage Sources
226. Resource Mortgage (Wholesale)
225. KH Financial
224. Lydian Mortgage
223. OMG Wholesale Lending
222. Saxon Mortgage (Wholesale)
221. Beazer Mortgage Corp.
220. Allpointe Mortgage (Broker Program)
219. Popular Warehouse Lending
218. Allied Lending Corp. (Wholesale)
217. BF Saul Wholesale Lending
216. Community Resource Mortgage
215. Lehman/Aurora Loan Services
214. Residential Mortgage Capital
213. Maverick Residential Mortgage
212. Countrywide Financial Corp.
211. First NLC Financial Services
210. First American Bank (Wholesale)
209. Soma Financial
208. National City Corp. (Wholesale)
207. Heartland Wholesale Funding
206. Homefront Mortgage Inc.
205. PNC Bank H.E.
204. Family First Mortgage Corp.
203. First Fidelity Financial
202. BSM Financial
201. 1st Choice Mortgage
200. Wescom Credit Union
199. Coast Financial Holdings/Coast Bank
198. WaMu (Subprime)
197. First Madison Mortgage
196. Southern Star Mortgage
195. TransLand Financial
194. Secured Bankers Mortgage Company (SBMC)
193. ComUnity Lending
192. Delta Financial Corp
191. BayRock Mortgage
190. Empire Bancorp
189. Option One – H&R Block
188. Citigroup – FCS Warehouse
187. Charter One (Wholesale)
186. Wells Fargo – Home Equity
185. Paul Financial, LLC
184. Webster Bank (Wholesale)
183. Fieldstone Mortgage Company
182. Tribeca Lending Corp. (Wholesale)
181. WAMU Comm. Correspondent
180. Marlin Mortgage Company
179. Countrywide Specialty Lending
178. UBS Home Finance
177. MortgageIT-DB (Retail)
176. Edgewater Lending Group
175. ResMAE Mortgage Corp.
174. Citimortgage Correspondent (2nds)
173. AMC Lending
172. Liberty American Mortgage
171. Exchange Financial (Wholesale)
170. FirstBank Mortgage
169. Bank of America (Wholesale)
168. Diablo Funding Group Inc.
167. Honor State Bank
166. Spectrum Financial Group
165. Priority Funding Mortgage Bankers
164. BrooksAmerica Mortgage Corp.
163. Valley Vista Mortgage
162. New State Mortgage Company
161. Summit Mortgage Company
160. WMC
159. Paragon Home Lending
158. First Mariner Wholesale
157. The Lending Connection
156. Foxtons, Inc.
155. SCME Mortage Bankers
154. Aapex Mortgage (Apex Financial Group)
153. Wells Fargo (various Correspondent and Non-prime divisions)
152. Nationstar Mortgage
151. Decision One (HSBC)
150. Impac Lending Group
149. Long Beach (WaMu Warehouse/Correspondent)
148. Expanded Mortgage Credit Wholesale
147. The Mortgage Store Financial
146. C & G Financial
145. CFIC Home Mortgage
144. All Fund Mortgage
143. LownHome Financial
142. Sea Breeze Financial Services
141. Castle Point Mortgage
140. Premium Funding Corp
139. Group One Lending
138. Allstate Home Loans / Allstate Funding
137. Home Loan Specialists (HLS)
136. Transnational Finance Wholesale
135. CIT Home Lending
134. Capital Six Funding
133. Mortgage Investors Group (MIG) – Wholesale
132. Amstar Mortgage Corp
131. Quality Home Loans
130. BNC Mortgage (Lehman)
129. First National Bank of Arizona
128. Chevy Chase Bank Correspondent
127. GreenPoint Mortgage – Capital One Wholesale
126. NovaStar, Homeview Lending
125. Quick Loan Funding
124. Calusa Investments
123. Mercantile Mortgage
122. First Magnus
121. First Indiana Wholesale
120. GEM Loans / Pacific American Mortgage (PAMCO)
119. Kirkwood Financial Corporation
118. Lexington Lending
117. Express Capital Lending
116. Deutsche Bank Correspondent Lending Group (CLG)
115. MLSG
114. Trump Mortgage
113. HomeBanc Mortgage Corporation
112. Mylor Financial
111. Aegis
110. Alternative Financing Corp (AFC) Wholesale
109. Winstar Mortgage
108. American Home Mortgage / American Brokers Conduit
107. Optima Funding
106. Equity Funding Group
105. Sunset Mortgage
104. Nations Home Lending
103. Entrust Mortgage
102. Alera Financial (Wholesale)
101. Flick Mortgage/Mortgage Simple
100. Dollar Mortgage Corporation
99. Alliance Bancorp
98. Choice Capital Funding
97. Premier Mortgage Funding
96. Stone Creek Funding
95. FlexPoint Funding (Wholesale & Retail)
94. Starpointe Mortgage
93. Unlimited Loan Resources (ULR)
92. Freestand Financial
91. Steward Financial
90. Bridge Capital Corporation
89. Altivus Financial
88. ACT Mortgage
87. Alliance Mortgage Banking Corp (AMBC)
86. Concord Mortgage Wholesale
85. Heartwell Mortgage
84. Oak Street Mortgage
83. The Mortgage Warehouse
82. First Street Financial
81. Right-Away Mortgage
80. Heritage Plaza Mortgage
79. Horizon Bank Wholesale Lending Group
78. Lancaster Mortgage Bank (LMB)
77. Bryco (Wholesale)
76. No Red Tape Mortgage
75. The Lending Group (TLG)
74. Pro 30 Funding
73. NetBank Funding, Market Street Mortgage
72. Columbia Home Loans, LLC
71. Mortgage Tree Lending
70. Homeland Capital Group
69. Nation One Mortgage
68. Dana Capital Group
67. Millenium Funding Group
66. MILA
65. Home Equity of America
64. Opteum (Wholesale, Conduit)
63. Innovative Mortgage Capital
62. Home Capital, Inc.
61. Home 123 Mortgage
60. Homefield Financial
59. First Horizon Subprime, Equity Lending
58. Platinum Capital Group (Wholesale)
57. First Source Funding Group (FSFG)
56. Alterna Mortgage
55. Solutions Funding
54. People’s Mortgage
53. LowerMyPayment.com
52. Zone Funding
51. First Consolidated (Subprime Wholesale)
50. SouthStar Funding
49. Warehouse USA
48. H&R Block Mortgage
47. Madison Equity Loans
46. HSBC Mortgage Services (correspondent div.)
45. Sunset Direct Lending
44. Kellner Mortgage Investments
43. LoanCity
42. CoreStar Financial Group
41. Ameriquest, ACC Wholesale
40. Investaid Corp.
39. People’s Choice Financial Corp.
38. Master Financial
37. Maribella Mortgage
36. FMF Capital LLC
35. New Century Financial Corp.
34. Wachovia Mortgage (Correspondent div.)
33. Ameritrust Mortgage Company (Subprime Wholesale)
32. Trojan Lending (Wholesale)
31. Fremont General Corporation
30. DomesticBank (Wholesale Lending Division)
29. Ivanhoe Mortgage/Central Pacific Mortgage
28. Eagle First Mortgage
27. Coastal Capital
26. Silver State Mortgage
25. ECC Capital/Encore Credit
24. Lender’s Direct Capital Corporation (wholesale division)
23. Concorde Acceptance
22. DeepGreen Financial
21. American Freedom Mortgage, Inc.
20. Millenium Bankshares (Mortgage Subsidiaries)
19. Summit Mortgage
18. Mandalay Mortgage
17. Rose Mortgage
16. EquiBanc
15. FundingAmerica
14. Popular Financial Holdings
13. Clear Choice Financial/Bay Capital
12. Origen Wholesale Lending
11. SecuredFunding
10. Preferred Advantage
9. MLN
8. Sovereign Bancorp (Wholesale Ops)
7. Harbourton Mortgage Investment Corporation
6. OwnIt Mortgage
5. Sebring Capital Partners
4. Axis Mortgage & Investments
3. Meritage Mortgage
2. Acoustic Home

Further if your law firm is in the debt consolidation business and you are in any of the jurisdictions below and you have an excellent track record of success, we’d like to talk to you.

New York New York Los Angeles California Chicago Illinois Houston Texas Phoenix Arizona Philadelphia Pennsylvania San Antonio Texas Dallas Texas San Diego California San Jose California Detroit Michigan San Francisco California Jacksonville Florida Indianapolis  Indiana Austin Texas Columbus Ohio Fort Worth Texas Charlotte North Carolina Memphis Tennessee Baltimore  Maryland Boston  Massachusetts El Paso Texas Milwaukee Wisconsin Denver Colorado Seattle Washington Nashville  Tennessee Washington District of Columbia Las Vegas Nevada Portland Oregon Louisville  Kentucky Oklahoma City Oklahoma Tucson Arizona Atlanta Georgia Albuquerque New Mexico Kansas City  Missouri Fresno California Sacramento California Long Beach California Mesa Arizona Omaha Nebraska Cleveland Ohio Virginia Beach Virginia Miami Florida Oakland California Raleigh North Carolina Tulsa Oklahoma Minneapolis Minnesota Colorado Springs Colorado Honolulu  Hawaii Arlington Texas Wichita Kansas St. Louis  Missouri Tampa Florida Santa Ana California New Orleans  Louisiana Anaheim California Cincinnati Ohio Bakersfield California Aurora Colorado Pittsburgh Pennsylvania Riverside California Toledo Ohio Stockton California Corpus Christi Texas Lexington Kentucky St. Paul Minnesota Anchorage Alaska Newark New Jersey Buffalo New York Plano Texas Henderson Nevada Lincoln Nebraska Fort Wayne Indiana Glendale Arizona Greensboro North Carolina Chandler Arizona St. Petersburg Florida Jersey City New Jersey Scottsdale Arizona Norfolk Virginia Madison Wisconsin Orlando Florida Birmingham Alabama Baton Rouge Louisiana Durham North Carolina Laredo Texas Lubbock Texas Chesapeake  Virginia Chula Vista California Garland Texas Winston-Salem North Carolina North Las Vegas Nevada Reno Nevada Gilbert Arizona Hialeah Florida Arlington  Virginia Akron Ohio Irvine California Rochester New York Boise Idaho Modesto California Fremont California Montgomery Alabama Spokane Washington Richmond  Virginia Yonkers New York Irving Texas Shreveport Louisiana San Bernardino California Tacoma Washington Glendale California Des Moines Iowa Augusta  Georgia Grand Rapids Michigan Huntington Beach California Mobile Alabama Moreno Valley California Little Rock Arkansas Amarillo Texas Columbus Georgia Oxnard California Fontana California Knoxville Tennessee Fort Lauderdale Florida Worcester Massachusetts Salt Lake City Utah Newport News Virginia Huntsville Alabama Tempe Arizona Brownsville Texas Fayetteville North Carolina Jackson Mississippi Tallahassee Florida Aurora Illinois Ontario California Providence Rhode Island Overland Park Kansas Rancho Cucamonga California Chattanooga Tennessee Oceanside California Santa Clarita California Garden Grove California Vancouver Washington Grand Prairie Texas Peoria Arizona Rockford Illinois Cape Coral Florida Springfield Missouri Santa Rosa California Sioux Falls South Dakota Port St. Lucie Florida Dayton Ohio Salem Oregon Pomona California Springfield Massachusetts Eugene Oregon Corona California Pasadena Texas Joliet Illinois Pembroke Pines Florida Paterson New Jersey Hampton  Virginia Lancaster California Alexandria  Virginia Salinas California Palmdale California Naperville Illinois Pasadena California Kansas City Kansas Hayward California Hollywood Florida Lakewood Colorado Torrance California Syracuse New York Escondido California Fort Collins Colorado Bridgeport Connecticut Orange California Warren Michigan Elk Grove California Savannah Georgia Mesquite Texas Sunnyvale California Fullerton California McAllen Texas Cary North Carolina Cedar Rapids Iowa Sterling Heights Michigan Columbia South Carolina Coral Springs Florida Carrollton Texas Elizabeth New Jersey Hartford Connecticut Waco Texas Bellevue Washington New Haven Connecticut West Valley City Utah Topeka Kansas Thousand Oaks California El Monte California Independence Missouri McKinney Texas Concord California Visalia California Simi Valley California Olathe Kansas Clarksville Tennessee Denton Texas Stamford Connecticut Provo Utah Springfield Illinois Killeen Texas Abilene Texas Evansville Indiana Gainesville Florida Vallejo California Ann Arbor Michigan Peoria Illinois Lansing Michigan Lafayette Louisiana Thornton Colorado Athens  Georgia Flint Michigan Inglewood California Roseville California Charleston South Carolina Beaumont Texas Victorville California Santa Clara California Costa Mesa California Miami Gardens Florida Manchester New Hampshire Miramar Florida Downey California Arvada Colorado Allentown Pennsylvania Westminster Colorado Waterbury Connecticut Norman Oklahoma Midland Texas Elgin Illinois West Covina California Clearwater Florida Cambridge Massachusetts Pueblo Colorado West Jordan Utah Round Rock Texas Billings Montana Erie Pennsylvania South Bend Indiana San Buenaventura (Ventura) California Fairfield California Lowell Massachusetts Norwalk California Burbank California Richmond California Pompano Beach Florida High Point North Carolina Murfreesboro Tennessee Lewisville Texas Richardson Texas Daly City California Berkeley California Gresham Oregon Wichita Falls Texas Green Bay Wisconsin Davenport Iowa Palm Bay Florida Columbia Missouri Portsmouth Virginia Rochester