Submitted by dan, whom I think is 100% right here:
After a closer look at trust law (see Gilbert Law Summeries on Trusts by Edward C. Halbach Jr), the 4 critical elements of a trust are:
1. trust intent.
2. specific trust res or property.
3. properly designated parties.
4. valid and legal trust purpose.
A grantor/trustor must objectively manifest a final, definite, and specific intention that a trust should immediately arise with respect to some particular property.
Grantor/trustor/settlor must express his/her purpose and intent and must own both legal and equitible title of trust res property (the note) prior to transfer or assignment.
A valid trust forms the moment trust property transfers to a trustee.
But banks formed the trust indentures way before they received our notes as trust property. You can’t form a trust with the prospect of receiving property at a future time. In the many mortgage trust indentures found on the SEC website, the “acting” grantor is actually the trust itself called the “issuer” or a second trust created to act as a “strawman grantor.”
The questions arise: how on earth can a dead legal fiction manifest an intent or purpose? And how can a legal fiction transfer trust property to a trustee for the benefit of an class of ascertainable beneficiaries? And the million dollar question: Why can’t we be the grantor and beneficiary of the note (negotiable instrument) bearing OUR signatures? Who could possibly make a superior claim on our own signatures? There is no doubt that we are in the land of trust and equity. I think our remedy will ultimately lie in the land of equity. We keep getting beat up in the land of Debtor/Creditor and UCC. Maybe an education in trust will level the playing field. I think we have been led astray by the misconception that trusts are stricly reserved for asset protection and avoiding probate. Hmmm.


