Foreclosure defense by Scrutinizing Names vs. Entities

In the complex world of mortgage and foreclosure proceedings, the use of names can be more about creating an appearance than representing genuine legal entities. Terms like “bankruptcy remote,” “liability remote,” and “reality remote” are often employed to shield transactions from legal scrutiny, without any actual legal person or entity standing behind them.

For anyone who has signed a mortgage and note, there’s a legitimate reason to question the existence of debt claimed by banks and financial institutions. Often, these claims are implied rather than clearly stated, raising concerns of deception and misleading practices.

Banks understand their vulnerability on this issue, relying on deep pockets, deception, and intimidation to maintain their positions. However, more homeowners are rightfully challenging these practices, often finding that their supposed debt balances are lower than claimed. Many have valid grounds to seek disgorgement of payments made and damages for being misled into agreements they didn’t fully understand.

There are numerous strategies available to challenge these claims, many of which have been settled confidentially with homeowners bound to silence in exchange for compensation.

One effective approach is to offer a payoff under conditions that require the claimant to acknowledge the payment and assert their legal ownership of the underlying obligation in writing, signed by an authorized officer. This tactic aligns with the concept in many states of an estoppel letter. (consult with us regarding your state specific issues) When met with silence, homeowners can pursue legal action for injunctions, quiet title against named parties, and damages or disgorgement for deliberate interference in their financial affairs.

While it’s true that individuals like “John Q Smith” exist in real life, using their names in transactions, especially in legal proceedings, isn’t simply a matter of convenience. This issue is particularly evident in foreclosure cases where banks file claims under the name of well-known trustee banks on behalf of trusts that may not actually exist.

In these cases, the lawyers representing banks in foreclosure proceedings often lack direct relationships with the banks they claim to represent, highlighting significant discrepancies that warrant careful scrutiny.

Continuing our examination of trusts named in foreclosure actions, this previous article on Bank of New York Mellon received positive feedback from unexpected sources.

We consistently emphasize the legal nuances of trusts, clarifying what constitutes a legitimate trust and what doesn’t, regardless of labels. For instance, when a PSA (Pooling and Servicing Agreement) claims to establish a trust agreement, it often falls short of genuine legal requirements, serving more as a façade for internal business dealings.

Consider “Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christiana Trust as Owner Trustee of the Residential Credit Opportunities Trust III.” This naming approach seems more about creating identities than representing genuine legal entities.

Operating under Christiana Trust, WSFS deviates from its banking role, with Christiana Trust serving as an alias lacking substantive legal significance. Claims that WSFS acts as trustee for Residential Credit Opportunities Trust III require careful scrutiny. Without clear proof of a valid trust agreement with beneficiaries and assets, such claims may lack credibility.

In legal matters, WSFS often distances itself from trustee responsibilities, complicating its role further. While “Christiana Trust” is registered in Delaware, this doesn’t confirm its role in foreclosures. The issue remains: these names often mask the absence of genuine legal entities. Whether Residential Credit Opportunities Trust III is a name or an LLC, it doesn’t represent a legitimate trust, highlighting misuse of trust language in legal claims.

In summary, Owner Trustees such as WSFS uses its name strategically in legal battles without clear legal entity backing, necessitating rigorous scrutiny and challenges in court.

And that’s exactly what we do here at Neil Garfield’s living lies site. We defend the foreclosure.

Thanks for following us! Lance Denha esq.

Need help in assessing your case? Does your attorney need our help? Use our services to help guide you through the process early enough to avoid mistakes that can cost you your home in an illegal foreclosure action. Call our office today at 844.583.5339 to inquire if we can help. You can also submit a case statement here and get a complimentary recommendation as to your best course of action.

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT.  Yes, you DO need a lawyer.

Posted in Uncategorized |