US Bank "Owner Trustee" v Lopez;

The case shows that we are all continuing to be held under an umbrella that is blocking the sunlight. I’m happy that Lopez won the appeal. But the court still is not putting the pieces together.

GO TO LENDINGLIES to order forms and services

Let us help you plan your answers, affirmative defenses, discovery requests and defense narrative:

954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult. You will make things a lot easier on us and yourself if you fill out the registration form. It’s free without any obligation. No advertisements, no restrictions.

Purchase now Neil Garfield’s Mastering Discovery and Evidence in Foreclosure Defense webinar including 3.5 hours of lecture, questions and answers, plus course materials that include PowerPoint Presentations. Presenters: Attorney and Expert Neil Garfield, Forensic Auditor Dan Edstrom, Attorney Charles Marshall and and Private Investigator Bill Paatalo. The webinar and materials are all downloadable.

Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230 or 202-838-6345. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

GO TO WWW.LENDINGLIES.COM OR https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies toschedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments. It’s better than calling!

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.

===================================

see USB Owner Trustee v Lopez

The very first sentence of the opinion shows that the Court is not scrutinizing the pleadings. The lawyers in the action proclaim the foreclosure is brought by U.S. Bank as “owner trustee.” So is USB the owner or the trustee for a trust that is the owner of the debt, note and mortgage — remembering that it needs to be all three.

The right to sue on a note does not confer, automatically, the right to foreclose on the mortgage.  In fact, the apparent ownership of the mortgage by way of an assignment does not confer the right to foreclose. See Article 9 UCC. The debt must be conveyed to the assignee of the mortgage or the successor to the note.

Here the lawyers state that U.S. Bank is a possessor with rights of a holder in order to invoke the status of a holder in due course without specifically pleading that exalted status. What is right in front of the court is a supposed trust that may or may not exist whose sole purpose was to BUY loans. By pleading “possessor with rights of a holder” there is a tacit information that the sale of the debt never took place.

In plain language that means that while pieces of paper were circulated with various apparent endorsements and assignments, the debt never moved. So somewhere out there the owner of the debt, the obligee of the debt, is getting screwed and the homeowner is the pawn in the game wherein the owner of the debt gets screwed.

This case should have resulted in a dismissal with prejudice. Instead the court bent over backwards to find a reason to vacate the foreclosure judgment on grounds of noncompliance with state law. Now the lawyers can come back again claiming the existence of a nonexistent trust that owns nothing, does nothing, and is never identified, as is required for all pleadings on behalf of a business entity, as having been organized and existing under the laws of the state of [____________].

Under trust law in virtually all states, no trust is actually created nor does it exist unless money and property is entrusted, by a trustor or settlor, to the named Trustee to hold for the benefit of beneficiaries. None of that happened. And in most cases the investors who bought “certificates” are expressly barred from asserting any interest in the debt, note or mortgage of any “underlying” mortgage loan.

Posted in Uncategorized |