Counsel's Authority to Represent

 *

In the absence of any real authority to represent a Trust and in the absence of the “Trust” paying for the representation then the ultimate question, described on the pages of my blog for 10 years is whether the Trust exists in the real world, whether it has any assets or business, and whether the attorneys who have propelled millions of foreclosures through the courts have simply been doing the bidding of some third party who will benefit from the foreclosure. The evidence abounds that neither the Trust nor the “investors” in the trust receive one cent of benefit from foreclosure.

 *

Under such circumstances I have been advising lawyers to file a motion requiring Counsel to show authority to represent. It is particularly indicated when the lawyers say they filed on behalf of one “Trustee” and then later seek to substitute the name of the Plaintiff “Trustee.”

 *

It’s not just a matter of whether they have a document or letter indicating the attorney or law firm was retained; as we have seen with other U.S. Bank cases that I have written about, there is the question of (a) whether there has been any contact between the law office and the so-called client (b) whether there is a live person who can answer questions about US Bank’s involvement and (c) whether the actual plaintiff is the Master Servicer and not the so-called Trustee, who has no duties, no obligations and merely receives a fee for use of its name for a nonexistent trust that is NOT being administered by the alleged “Trustee’s” trust department.

 *

Your opposition will keep the focus on U.S. Bank as long as it suits them. But US Bank (or whoever is playing the role of the Trustee) is NOT appearing in its individual capacity. In effect, US Bank is absent. The question is whether the Trust exists and is represented by counsel.

 *

This is a tough battle with few victories resulting in sanctions against US Bank and their lawyers. But it is worth fighting. It could break the back of the banks and servicers.

 *

Bar Associations that enforce rules against lawyers have been lax in their inquiries abut foreclosure mill lawyers while piling onto lawyers who do foreclosure defense by tainting them with the appearance of impropriety and even illegal acts that should apply not to lawyers but to non-lawyers offering unlicensed services. The MARS rule is being used by Bar associations against lawyers who have been merely practicing law while the Bar is accusing them of offering a foreclosure rescue scam.

 *

The trail of broker chains and promises makes it nearly impossible but not actually impossible to pin down the authority of counsel to bring a foreclosure in the name of “beneficiary” or successor mortgagee or successor trustee on deeds of trust.

 *

Remember the actual LaSalle Bank model. LaSalle is named as trustee in the “trust documents” that specifically describe how a new trustee could succeed LaSalle. Christiania Bank is also usually named with vague descriptions of why there are two trustees. Then LaSalle is “acquired” in a “reverse merger” with ABN AMRO.

 *

Thus LaSalle is not owned by ABN AMRO but ABN AMRO owns most of the stock of LaSalle. A reverse merger is a transaction where it looks like an acquisition by LASalle but LaSalle is issuing so much of LaSalle Stock to the owners of ABN AMRO that the owners of ABN AMRO end up owning ABN AMRO and a controlling interest in LaSalle.

 *

Then there are two interesting and conflicting “mergers” or “acquisitions.”

 *

Following the chain above, CitiMortgage acquires ABN AMRO, presumably buying the shares of ABN AMRO from the controlling investors in ABN AMRO. While a lay person would assume that CitiMortgage acquired LaSalle in this merger or acquisition, it is far from clear what Citi bought and what was sold in that transaction.

 *

But you also have a merger between Bank of America and LaSalle Bank, thus completely obscuring the proverbial “who’s on first”.

 *

And finally you have the “sale” of the Trustee position (contrary to the terms of the so-called “Trust instrument” (usually the Pooling and servicing Agreement) from BOA to US Bank. I remain highly doubtful that such a sale is legally possible. I don’t think the position of “Trustee” is a salable commodity any more than the position parent can be bought and sold on exchanges. The Trustor’s restrictions cannot be altered, changed, amended or modified without, at a minimum, notice to the beneficiaries and their consent. I doubt if any investors was given notice of the changes in the structure of the orbital nature of the administration of the Trust.