US Bank, America's Wholesale Lender, MERS Go Down in Flames

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

Updated Services for Homeowners and Attorneys

We’ve revamped our offerings to better serve both homeowners and attorneys. Please take a moment to complete our FREE registration form so we can better understand your current status: Submit Registration Here.

Available Services:

• 30-Minute Consult – expert analysis for homeowners; legal consultation for attorneys.

• 60-Minute Consult – deeper dive into case strategy and defenses.

• Case Review and Analysis.

• Rescission Review and drafting of documents for notice and recording.

• COMBO Title and Securitization Review.

• Expert Witness Declarations and Testimony.

• Consulting for Attorneys representing homeowners.

• Books, Manuals, and Video Seminars authored by Neil Garfield.

📞 For details, call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688, or email neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.

A Major Win in St. Petersburg Foreclosure Defense

“This is a huge win for homeowner’s attorney Kelley A. Bosecker in St. Petersburg, Florida.”
👉 Case: US Bank v. Dimant (2013-CA-001130).
👉 Related reference: St. Lucie Circuit Court ruling – “Nash on Steroids”.

This case echoes similar victories, including one by Patrick Giunta and myself in Broward County, centered on a fundamental problem: AWL (America’s Wholesale Lender) is a fictional entity with no standing.

Key Findings from the Court:

• AWL as Lender: The mortgage was recorded in favor of AWL, alleged to be a New York corporation. Evidence showed AWL was not a valid New York corporation and was not authorized to conduct business in Florida.

• No Nexus: There was no proof linking AWL, Countrywide (d/b/a AWL), Countrywide Bank, or Bank of America to the plaintiff trust.

• MERS Issues: MERS was used to facilitate assignments but was found not in statutory compliance with Florida’s Uniform Commercial Code.

• Standing: The REMIC trust had no standing to foreclose. The court correctly recognized the lack of real transactions and the fabricated assignments used to support the claim.

Why It Matters

This ruling reinforces what we’ve argued for years:

• Many foreclosure cases rely on fictional entities (like AWL or MERS) and fabricated paperwork.

• The underlying transactions—the actual funding or transfer of the debt—never occurred.

• The trusts cited as plaintiffs are often unfunded and nonfunctional, existing only as veils for investment banks.

Commentary

As I’ve testified in the past, inserting “Donald Duck” in place of MERS or AWL would make no difference—the effect is the same. These entities are legal fictions with no role in originating or acquiring real mortgage debts.

The real issue isn’t just the paperwork but the absence of genuine financial transactions. If trusts had ever actually purchased the loans, banks would have long ago produced proof of payment. Instead, they rely on fabricated assignments and lost note claims.

Quiet title actions alone are rarely sufficient unless the lien has already been voided—such as through TILA rescission or a court order. Nonetheless, challenging standing and exposing fictitious parties remains one of the most effective defenses available to homeowners.

⚖️ Cases like this remind us that foreclosure defense is about more than attacking paperwork—it’s about exposing the absence of real transactions and holding the industry accountable for its use of fictional entities to enforce nonexistent debts.

Need Help With Your Case?

Call us today at 844.583.5339
Submit your case statement online for a complimentary recommendation.
Visit LivingLies.me for resources and case insights.

Tags: america's wholesale lender, disclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, fraud, MERS, MERSCORP, securitization
Posted in Uncategorized |