U.S. Bank: Many Names, Many Creditors — the ultimate shell game

U.S. Bank, Trustee of What?

U.S. Bank shows up in many foreclosure cases and many cases that go into litigation. I believe they are allowing the use of their name for a fee and that they have little or nothing to do with most of the cases where their name is used. A little discovery might cover that and a challenge to the attorney as to proving that he represents U.S. Bank as they have portrayed themselves would be a useful tactic.

One case in Florida U.S. Bank portrayed itself as the holder of the note. In the end the attorney who appeared for U.S. Bank admitted under questioning from the Judge that U.S. Bank was not the holder, was not a trustee, and that the attorney had no idea whether he actually represented U.S. Bank because he never had any contact with them.

In bankruptcy court, which is confusing enough, you must realize that it is actually an administrative hearing with a tinge of legal. Some lawyers file adversaries to prove this or that based upon the filing of conflicting papers in the administrative part of the bankruptcy. I think that is a mistake. What are you going to say in your adversary pleading. You are taking on the burden of proof for facts that are exclusively in the possession of either the people you are dealing with, or some other third parties. The Bankruptcy is an administrative action where the forms and procedure are everything. If conflicting claims are present, it isn’t up to you to clear it up. It is up to the creditors or have their claim denied.

It looks to me like you have an OBJECTION to their claim when they change horses, especially when it happens multiple times in one case. If they have not filed a proof of claim within the 90 day time limit (check statutes and consult with attorney) you are allowed to file one for them. In your version be sure to say they are unsecured. The primary grounds for your objections would be that there are obviously multiple creditors, each seeking to collect on the same debt. Don’t say it in your pleading but ONE of them must file an adversary against the others, or at least a motion with affidavits and potentially witnesses to explain the discrepancies.

Here is another case:

“After nearly 4 years of fighting, the “lender” has finally changed their position (again) and now submitted a request for notice in my BKR as the attorneys for US BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR RASC SERIES 2005- EMX4.

Here are some of the names they have used previously (in violation of California Rules of Evidence 623):

• US Bank, NA as Trustee by Residential Funding Company, LLC fka Residential Funding Corporation Attorney in Fact
  • in a letter sent in conjunction with the NOD dated 12/24/2008 (NOD did not use this name or any derivative)
  • 1st assignment 1/2009 (MERS as nominee for MLN, and MLN went into BKR 2/2007)
  • Proof of Claim circa 5/2009
  • Motion for Relief from Stay circa 9/2009
  • Response to various state lawsuits saying “everything was fine with the recorded documents” (paraphrased)
• US Bank, NA as Trustee
  • Note endorsement allegedly on or before 11/17/2005 (numerous intervening endorsements, but endorsement to depositor is skipped)
  • 2nd Assignment 7/2009 (MERS as nominee for MLN, and MLN went into BKR 2/2007)
  • Motion for Summary Judgment filed by NDeX West 5/30/2012 in my state court case
• RFC Trustee 04
  • MERS Servicer ID states that the “investor” is RFC Trustee 04 (not sure when record was created, presumably in November/December 2005)
• MERS
  • Motion for Summary Judgment filed by NDeX West 5/30/2012 in my state court case
• US Bank, National Association as Trustee for RASC Series 2005-EMX4
  • Request for Notice filed in my Chp. 11 on 7/31/2012 by Barrett Daffin Treder & Weiss
  • This is the first time EVER this name appears in this form by ANY of the parties I have sued or sent letters. They have never mentioned the trust before.

They cannot perfect their security interest because there is a TRO in the state court case (plus I have the BKR automatic stay).

Attached is this notice, my preliminary status report (read section #6 where I describe the use of different names and tell the judge that I have no idea who I will be naming in the adv. proc. because they constantly change the name of the creditor), and my objection to their request for notice.”

NEW! Sign Up For San Francisco Workshop FULL DAY

Sign Up For Anaheim Workshop FULL DAY

Sign Up For Anaheim Workshop 1/2 Day

2nd Edition Attorney Workbook,Treatise & Practice Manual

——–>SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS: WHOSE LIEN IS IT ANYWAY TOC

Tags: automatic stay, lift stay order, multiple creditors, Objection to claim, one debt, trustee, U.S. Bank, US BANK
Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |