LIVINGLIES—GARFIELD CONTINUUM BLOG |
|
 |
COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary |
11.10.10 B OF NY MELLON AZ BK -Fourth-Amended-Complaint[1]
see also HEAD BKR JUDGE IN AZ JUST RULED BONY MEL
One of the interesting things about this particular litigant is that he has a combination of factors in which the pretender lender side has everything to lose and almost nothing to gain by proceeding with their attempt to foreclose. If the good Judge here continues to apply the law, BONY is screwed. And THAT will affect other foreclosures that were wrongfully done against this same litigant. The wrongful foreclosures against this individual give rise to some pretty big actions for damages. They might also give rise to administrative Federal and State action against the pretender lenders, not to speak of potential criminal actions, for which investigations are underway. Despite the deep color red, politically speaking, Arizona has a very aggressive Attorney General (Terry Goddard), who apparently gets it. So this case bears watching, not just for the drama of David and Goliath, but for the eventual outcome.
It’s the story of a very talented film maker who has been knocked down so many times he can’t count them. But he keeps getting up and throwing some pretty effective punches. Reminds me of the Rocky scenario. But my guess is that this Judge, who is still opposed (not just skeptical) to defenses and claims based upon securitization, splitting the obligation, note and mortgage etc., is going to turn the corner like dozens of other Judges are doing across the country, which means that unlike Rocky who considered himself a success for surviving 15 rounds in which he lost on points, Mr.Bailey may end up a big, even huge winner in all of his cases starting with a favorable ruling in this particular case.
BONY and the other pretender lenders are getting increasingly uncomfortable and so are the investors, and those hedge funds “hunting for bargains” that the entire foreclosure process for the past few years might be rolled back on reset by the courts and that they are running out of options to stop it. So this pro se litigant, if he wins this round, may very well roll back the other foreclosures and file actions for damages that will be very sizable indeed. He might even find a clever lawyer who sees the potential NOW that will help him. A smart lawyer with knowledge of bankruptcy rules, adversary proceedings and securitization, lending laws etc., could land himself a mighty fine fee on contingency now that the litigant has already done all of the heavy lifting. What seemed like a hopeless case is now a genuine threat to the Wall Street oligopoly, as unlikely as that seemed when the battle started more than 2 years ago.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud |
Freddie Mac Bulletin 2009-16 Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company
As of October 1, 2009, Freddie Mac will no longer directly provide Note certification and custody services, and has selected The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. (BNYM) to perform such services for its Mortgages as Freddie Mac’s Designated Custodian (Designated Custodian). Among other things, this Bulletin describes the transition of certification responsibilities and custody of Notes to BNYM. The transition period begins
October 1, 2009, and will extend to the effective date of the custodial relationship the Seller/Servicer must establish with either the Designated Custodian or another third-party Custodian. The effective date of either such arrangement is referred to in this Bulletin as the “Custodial Agreement Effective Date.”
http://www.freddiemac.com/sell/guide/bulletin/pdf/bll0916.pdf
I think the correct name for the “Bank of New York Trust Company” is now Bank of New York Mellon.
I’m digging info from the Wikipedia. Not much is listed for the Trust company but I note that a particular law suit with the Pacific Lumber Company cites “Bank of New York Trust” yet that very same law suit is listed on the time-line for Bank of New York Mellon.
The ‘trust’ name is apparently an older version of the BoNY name. They merged with several Trust companies and also swapped portions of their company with JP Morgan Chase, acquiring the Trust portion of JP Morgan in the deal.
Then eventually they also did the merger with Mellon.
So, yes, I believe you are looking at the same company.
As far as BoNY getting into trouble, look at the money laundering that they were involve in with the Russians. Look at the Pacific Lumber case where they are refusing to follow the judge’s decision, despite failure in appeal attempts.
Just because they are BIG, does not mean they are adhering to the laws. Like all the others, they are ‘above the law’.
Concerned:
I know that Bank of New York and “mellon” merged a while back but I am trying to figure out if when one of these trusts says “Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee for Certificate Holders for XXXXX series XXXX, etc etc, is that really Bank of New York Trust Co.
Thanks
If you are referring to the same “Bank of New York Trust Company” that I am aware of, there was a merger or acquisition of Mellon Bank by Bank of New York. That led to the current “Bank of New York-Mellon”. I have seen BoNY-Mellon just referred to as “BoNY”, even after the Mellon was added to the mix.
The bankruptcy courts seem to be more sympathetic than other courts. I believe that is because the attorneys and judges in bankruptcy court understand the laws about debt and the plight of people filing for bankruptcy. http://www.challengingforeclosure.com Sirak@challengingforeclosure.com
Just curious if The bank of New York Trust Company is the real name for the infamous Bank of New York Mellon as Trustee for Certificate Holders for XXXXXXXX? (any and all MBS trusts) I found them listed with the AZ Sec. of State so I assume all trusts have to be registered with the state to do business in AZ??? If they are not BONY Mellon, then why isn’t BONY Mellon registered and if they are BONY Mellon, the site has them listed as pending revocation. Any thoughts
CAN ANYONE POST A NEW Compliant, Motions; POST Media awarenness, so we can all fight the fight better. TRO too, if anyone has one.
see also HEAD BKR JUDGE IN AZ JUST RULED BONY MEL this link is not working