BKR TRUSTEE SEEKS TO VOID THE LIEN (MORTGAGE): BAC NOT A CREDITOR

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

MORTGAGE IS VOID NOT JUST VOIDABLE

MISSISSIPPI BKR TRUSTEE TURNS THE TABLES ON BANKS: 

STATES NO EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO PROCEED TO DECLARE THE LIEN IS VOID

SEE BROTHERS V BAC ET AL Memorandum Brief Partial Summary Judgment FINAL-1

SEE BROTHER V TRUSTMARK-BAC ET AL Mtn Partial Summary Judgment FINAL-1

EDITOR’S NOTE: Now we are getting down to business and moving into the 5th inning of 9 inning game. As stated on these pages (resisted by virtually everyone) this Bankruptcy Trustee is seeking to have the court declare that the lien is VOID. That means they have nothing that gives them the right to foreclose and it means that the title to the property is subject to a court order declaring the rights of the parties, to wit: that the homeowner, as petitioner in bankruptcy, has plenty of equity because the home is not being used a security for the loan, even assuming that the loan created a legitimate obligation and even if you assume that the obligation is in fact owed to BAC Home Loans (Bank of America).

BAC WAS DETERMINED TO AS TO ITS STATUS: IT IS NOT A CREDITOR, which means that it cannot neither pursue payment as an unsecured claimant nor pursue foreclosure (which is pursuing payment) using foreclosure.

BUT REMEMBER THIS: YOU CAN’T WIN THE LOTTERY WITHOUT BUYING A TICKET: IF YOU DON’T OBJECT, IF YOU DON’T FILE THE SCHEDULES SHOWING THE PARTIES CORRECTLY ALIGNED, YOU STAND A HIGH RISK OF LOSING DESPITE THE OBVIOUS REALITY PRESENTED BY THIS WELL-WRITTEN MOTION AND MEMORANDUM.

AND REMEMBER THIS: YOU CAN GET RID OF THE LIEN ON THE PROPERTY, BUT THAT DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE OBLIGATION TO SOMEONE (I.E., THE INVESTOR/LENDERS).

Section 506(d) states: “To the extent that a lien secures a claim against the debtor that is not an allowed secured claim, such lien is void, unless – (1) such claim was disallowed only under section 502(b)(5) or 502(e) of this title;; or (2) such claim is not an allowed secured claim due only to the failure of any entity to file a proof of such claim under section 501 of this title.”

Following consideration of evidence, testimony of witnesses and argument of counsel, this Court ruled from the bench finding that the claim of BAC was disallowed as a secured claim. An order (Dkt. # 49) consistent with the Court’s ruling was entered herein on August 31, 2010.

Based upon the Amended Proof of Claim and its attachments, Trustee filed an Amended Objection to Proof of Claim alleging, among other things, that BAC lacked standing as a secured creditor to file its claim in the bankruptcy case. (Dkt. #31, Amended Objection, ¶ 2)

After consideration of all matters properly presented, the Court ruled that BAC failed to offer evidence that the trust CWMBS 2005-­R1 held both the Note and the Deed of Trust and, therefore, it was not a creditor of the debtors.    (Dkt. Entry dated August 18, 2010, Dkt. #49)

Tags: bac home loans, Bank of America, bankruptcy, BKR, borrower, BROTHERS, countrywide, disclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, trustmark, VOID, VOID LIEN, WEISBAND
Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |