Quiet Title: Head to head approach

From Bill: Sample Cause of Action in our complaints… (decoupling). Neil, your thoughts?

Editor’s Note: My thoughts are this is exactly what is needed.

————-

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.

Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |