SACCI v. MERS | CA Dist. Court “MYSTIFYING, UTTERLY CONFUSING ASSIGNMENTS, SUBSTITUTIONS, HOST OF ENTITIES

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

USDC CA Central -Sacchi-v-Mers-La-11-Cv11-01658-Ahm-Cwx-w

EDITOR’S NOTE: Every time a Court actually looks at the documents, examines the pleadings and exhibits and asks the most basic questions, they rule in favor of the borrower. It’s not out of bias that they ruled as they did before nor is out of some new bias for borrowers that the latest rulings favor borrowers. It is just application of simple, basic existing law without any need to treat the issues as novel in any way.

The Banks have completed millions of foreclosures side-stepping the issue of whether or not they are in fact the creditor, whether they could submit a credit bid at the auction, whether the money is owed to them, and if they are acting as “agent” whether they will disclose the principal in the transaction. The courts deferred to the banks for too long. Now the Judges are realizing that they have been hoodwinked and that their prior rulings have enabled the worst property title crisis in U.S. history as well as the worst financial scam. The ultimate cost of these errors cannot be calculated in money alone. Ruined lives, divorces and suicides are not just numbers on a page.

SACCI v. MERS | CA Dist. Court “MYSTIFYING, UTTERLY CONFUSING ASSIGNMENTS, SUBSTITUTIONS, HOST OF ENTITES, 2923.5″

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGELA SACCI, et al

vs

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS , INC,, et al

EXCERPT:

This Court has dealt with numerous mortgage-related cases, and in the process of wading through them it has learned that seemingly straightforward transactions -non – judicial foreclosures- are not at all routine. Indeed, all too often they are mystifying, because of the utterly confusing assignments, substitutions, and other transactions (some recorded, some not) conducted by a host of entities. The number and names of the defendants in Plaintiffs’ FAC only hint at what has now been revealed as the tangled story underlying this loan and the other loans involved in many of these cases.

[…]

Not only is Gomes distinguishable on it’s facts, the Gomes court actually suggested a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure might survive if “the plaintiff complaint identified a specific factual basis for alleging that the foreclosure was not initiated by the correct party.” Id. (emphasis in original). Here, Plaintiffs have alleged just such a specific factual basis – namely, that RCS was not yet the beneficiary under the DOT when it executed the Substitution of Trustee in favor of Fidelity.

[…]

Tags: 2923.5, American Home Mortgage Servicing, ANGELA SACCI, assignment of mortgage, bankruptcy, borrower, CALIFORNIA, Civil Code § 2923.5, DEED OF TRUST, DOT, fidelity, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, fraud, Judge A. Howard Matz, MERS, modification, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Power Default Services, Residential Credit Solutions
Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |