1.

n
.

f,

"

Trespass Unwanted, on November 11. 2011 at 3:32am said: Why the OCC settlement is not an 'option' for me. Deed of trust names the trustee. Lender (on the Deed of Trust) must appoint a substitute trustee. If the sale is conducted by anyone other than the trustee named in the deed of trust ' or ' a properly appointed substitute trustee, the sale is void. courtroom.com/uccrprop.pdf Trustee and Substitute Trustee. The deed of trust will have named a trustee. That individual may not be avdilable to actually conduct the foreclosure, however, and the lender must appoint a substitute trustee. Such appointment must be made in strict compliance with the deed of trust terms. Failure to do so will make the attempted appointment invalid. Johns.on v. Koenig, 353 S.W.2d 478 (Tex. Civ. App. -Austin 1962, writ refd n.r.e.). The deed of trust may also require that any substitute trustee appointment be recorded. Check for such requirements in the deer of trust and whether the lender has complied therewith. All such requirements regarding the substitute trustee must be met before posting. If the sale is conducted by anyone other than the trustee named i'1 the deed of trust or a properly appointed substitute trustee, the sale is void. Pretender lenders had everything planned out, except the training of the IHW firms (foreclosure mills) they hired, especially in non-judicial states. It was hard enough to find an attorney that knew real estate law to save a 1ome from foreclosure, so these firms had no stringent procedures for doing the )anks bidding. Now they are taking their time, retrieving documents, making sure paperw >rk is in order before proceeding, but they have two years of foreclosures where they botched it literally and are in deep doo-doo. When the 50 state AGs started the investigation (an you know they don't investigate nothing if there is no wrongdoing), there were press releases hsued

by some. Texas AG press release said the banks violated the state constitution, property law, contract law, trust law, it was beautiful. oag.state. tx. us/oagNews/release.php?id=3500 oag .state. tx. us/newspubs/releases/201 0/10051 0_sample_bank. pdf We are aware that Bank of America services a significant number of mortgages in the State of Texas. It is likely that affidavits and other documents, such as assignments of deeds of trust and appointments of substitute trustees, with the issued described, above may have been used in connection with foreclosures in the State of Texas. Regardless of whether the foreclosure was a nonjudicial one or a judicial one in connection with a home equity loan, home equity line of credit I or reverse mortgage, if any of the practices described above were utilized In establishing Bank of America's authority to conduct the sale or obtain a coprt order for a sale, such use would have been in a violation of Section 17.46(a) of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act; Section 392.304, Texas Debt CollectionsAct; Section 37.02, Texas Penal Code; Section 12.001, Texas Property Code; Section 406.009, Texas Government Code; Texas Constitl tion Article 16, Section 50; and/or Rule 736(1), Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and the document and therefore the foreclosure sale would have been invalid. There is more documented, it's a great read if you digest what is alleged. The banks ignored this. They continued to foreclose, and continued to evict, ar.d sold foreclosed homes even though this order told them not to. It was issued in October, I had been evicted from my property by the, but f1e following April they sold it, stuck it under Quicken Loans with is attached t( MERS because I saw the documents on file for the supposed new owner. The violations and injuries stand until the homeowner enters a new contraCt. People jump to save their home with a mod with a bank who was not their lender on the original mortgage. The only reason I can see OCC would want to have those people between 2009 and 2010 who got a modification, is there must be a missing piece they need a signature for, and this review will give them that missing piece. There are pending foreclosures. I don't know why they won't just forgive tt.e debt. The theft of my home was botched so bad, that I kept track of everything c-1d since I know the sale is void, I know I'm not dealing with any time frame fc being made whole again. The bank can drag their feet, but someone is going to 11ave to

undo what was done. I am a peaceful inhabitant. I have a right to be here. Thou shalt not steal. Someone waged a financial war on me with no right to do so. I will be made whole. The meek will inherit the earth. Trespass Unwanted, life, corporeal, State, allodial, jure divino, in jure proprio

WATCH OUT! BEFORE YOU BUY THAT NEXT PROPER!'(.= TITLE ISSUES
Posted on November 11, 2011 by Neil Garfield MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS HERE GRAVE PITFALLS IN BUYING A HOME TODAY

CLICK

If you are paying cash, that is no protection against later claims of owners who never legally lost title or gave title notwithstanding what is recorded in the title registry. Those documents if false would return the prior owner to title and . possession of the property. That would leave you literally out in the cold wi~hout home or the money you put into the deal. And as we have already seen, t!le fact that a title company or even an ACTUAL lender (actually lending their own money) is willing to close doesn't mean that title is clear. Both have been consisting violating basic underwriting standards of the industry for at least 15 years. If there is or was one or more loans going back perhaps 10-15 years in the chain title, they were probably subject to some claim of securitization. If securitization is an issue the plain truth is that the players in the securitization chain can't tell you what you need to know about title. They just don't know because they hever cared. There is a big difference between WHAT THEY SAID THEY DID- that would be the closing documents with the borrower WHAT THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO- that would be the c1osing documents with the investor- the securitization documentation WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DID- that would be the actual money trail-'where it came from, where it went, or kept it, or passed it on, and who was ultimately receiving the bulk of the payments or proceeds of payments from the borrower, the servicer, other third parties, insurers or federal bailout.

Each of these factor into title or potential claims on title. each of these factor into any foreclosure and subsequent sale. And ultimately each of these will need to be cleared through signatures and recorded affidavits of all the possible ,, ,. participants, a court order quieting title or both. CASE IN POINT: I know of a situation in Phoenix where the famed foreclosure mill Tiffany and Bosco is involved. There was a foreclosure and then there was a deed from husband to wife. Obviously that raises eyebrows. If there was a foreclosure and it was valid then the husband to wife deed is a wild deed and can be ignored. But the husband and wife deed is corroborated by the fact that one of them or both were on the original deed and the original mortgage that was foreclosed. So the husband -wife deed is not clearly wild - it is questionable at best and at worst, part of the proof that the foreclosure sale was illegal, ineffective or invalid. Now the property went apparently from the party who submitted the successful bid at an "auction" that may or may not have been authorized because it Wf.S ordered or conducted by a "Substitute trustee"by virtue of a substitution o{ trustee that may or may not be an authenticated document. And the Notice.">f Default and Notice of Sale may or may not have named the actual creditor. In most cases, it does not appear that the substitution of trustee names the ac.tual creditor, which is why the judicial states have a much larger backlog of . foreclosures than non-judicial where the pretender lenders get away with .~ substituting fabricated paperwork in lieu of actual chain of title. Thus the highest probability is that if you are buying a residential piece of real estate, there are title questions that are overhanging the transaction. This is a bad thing that endangers your investment and your plans but not so bad that it pan't be fixed. I think I would get an affidavit from Bosco saying that to his knowledge and belief there are no facts, documents or circumstances under which anv third party could claim an interest in the real property other than as stated in the commitment- and that he is in a position to know. That affidavit should b, executed in recordable form along with the Warranty Deed when they close. Considering what we know, an affidavit from the witnesses and notary saying that Bosco actually signed it would be in order as well and also executed in recordable form and recorded as attachments to the deed. If they refuse to do the affidavits, then watch out. The seller is said to be an LLC and the title company already wants to know who that LLC is, who formed it and what chain of authority is present to convey title. There are a thousand reasons why title is being portrayed this way. But it is
;:':_

possible that Bosco was the successful bidder, that Bosco created the LLC and that Bosco named himself as Trustee. The conveyance from husband to wife indicates an outstanding interest in the property. If the policy contains an exception for this conveyance it is giant loophole in title and the insurance.. The commitment says they want details on the incorporation of the LLC. I would ask for those documents as well. But overall, this is not evidence, in and of itself that the whole thing is a sham. The 24 month period referred to in the commitment represents a common look back period for the commitment. It doesn't mean that is all the work they will do. I think the whammy will come when they issue the actual policy. THAT will b' materially different from this commitment. And they say so right in the commitment. Leaving off Schedule A, considering the naming of the Seller and buyer later on, does not seem wrong and in fact is common practice so the commitment is not used in lieu of a policy. Many people if they read anything, read the commit.;nent. The commitment is basically a preview but not the real thing. The practice in the industry is to issue the commitment with exculpatory language such that when they issue a policy that is materially different from the commitment, you probably won't notice it. I think you must take the position that the title to this property is probably hopelessly mired in doubt and clouds. But here is what you could do. You could file a quiet title action based upon the questions raised by the commitment, with cooperation of T&B et al and name everyone in the universe. After the time for answers has come and gone, the defaults are entered and final judgment is entered. Then title is clear. The burden of doing so SHOULD be on the se~ler, but they might insist on you doing it yourself. The lawsuit should recite the fact that there are questions of title relating to,the securitization or attempted securitization of the loan. It should be served on the last known servicer and the last "lender". The lawsuit should occur BEFORE the closing which means that the seller LLC should be the plaintiff. And the deal should be that if the Judge doesn't sign the order, there is no deal and all money is refunded. If you follow this I believe that you will receive something practically nobody else has - clear title. As the title issues become more and more in the news, the fact that you received a clear title order from a Judge would increase both marketability AND price when you want to sell it. And remember, the Final
7

Judgment signed the judge must (a) be clocked in with clerk who gives you a certified copy and then (b) the certified copy recorded in the title registry of_the county in which the property is located. Do that as soon as you can lay hands on the Judge's Final order. Check with a licensed attorney knowledgeable in real estate and title issues and who has some working knowledge of securitization before you take any action based upon this article. This is for general information only and not meant as advice on any particular case. You should not proceed with the purchase of anything as important as a house without the assistance of an attorney licensed in the jurisdiction in which the property is located.