2009 WA STATE BKR RELIEF FROM STAY DENIED: NO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, NO STANDING

ONE ON ONE WITH NEIL GARFIELD

COMBO ANALYSIS TITLE AND SECURITIZATION

SEE 01.24.2011 -Brandt-Decision-Relief-from-Stay-w

NOTABLE QUOTES:

Before the Court is a motion for relief from the automatic stay of Sec 362(a) to enforce a deed of trust on the debtor’s residence. As it was neither brought in the name of the real party in interest, nor by anyone with standing, the motion for relief from stay will be DENIED.

Debtors do not explicate how they reach the conclusion, from news stories about the handling of toxic assets in the banking systems of this country and Switzerland, that UBS (or UBS AG, which only claims to service the loan for another holder) was paid an amount approximating the default alleged in the motion. That said, they raise a standing question.

UBS AG has submitted no evidence that it is authroized to act for whomever hols the note. That deficiency puts its standing in question. See IN Re Parrish, 326 B.R. 708, 720 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2005), and I have an independent duty to determine whether I have jurisdiction over matters that come before me. FW/PBS, Inc. v City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990). I must therefore determine whether UBS AG (or Movant) has standing to seek relief from stay.

Foreclosure agents and servicers do not automatically have standing, In Re Scott 376 B.R. 285, 290 (Bankr. D Idaho 2007): Hwang, 396 at 767, and must show authority to act for the party which does.

[See long discussion of evidence and business records too which is exactly the law in virtually all jurisdictions]

Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |