TRUSTEE’S BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

SEE ALSO TRUSTEES PURSUE ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES

WRITTEN BY JOHN STUART

TRUSTEE – COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES

 D R A F T. INCOMPLETE. DO NOT USE AS IS.

[Notes: 1. I believe this suit would work against a “real” TRUSTEE also, but I would rather sue a “fake” TRUSTEE and have no one appear in court on the TRUSTEE’s behalf; 2. TRUSTEEs are controlled by State law, and every State is different.

3. The suit will be futile without a notary complaint filed. 4. The “gurus” will get a hold of this and add their “pay-the-idiot” bullshit, don’t listen to them, they are blinded by greed and are barred from learning and understanding the truth]

I.         SUIT:

         1.         Claim:          Breach of Fiduciary Duty to the Trustee

                  A single claim, no reason to muddy the waters and give them a basis to misdirect us down the rabbit hole.

2.         Relief:          Quiet the Title

                  This prevents the judge from being in a bad spot since a quiet Title is totally voidable by anyone that has the proper valid legal documents.

3.         Proof of Claim:                 

                  A.         False notarized documents filed into a public office

                  Often the TRUSTEE is financially tied to the foreclosing entity

B.         IRS form 3949A

                  You inform to the IRS on the TRUSTEE, they are probably not properly reporting ALL of the transactions

II.         LEGAL DOCTRINES: We must defeat the presumption

         1.         Presumptions trump law:

         No, they do NOT teach this in law school and attorneys will argue its wrong, then they realize it’s the whole foundation of civil law; it’s a wake up call for          everyone. (I’ve taught it for years, people are starting to listen)

         2.         Laws do NOT mean crap in civil court when a presumption is in the contract; the court will ALWAYS go with the presumption:

         This is why we lose. The presumption the TRUSTEE is real and valid means that all the judge has to do is what the TRUSTEE orders him to do. It’s called TRUST LAW, not contract law. Remember, DEED OF TRUST not DEED OF CONTRACT

         3.         The Borrower (TRUSTOR) may or may not be in DEFAULT, the LOAN is never in DEFAULT, it’s insured a dozen different ways:

The law firms are always screaming the borrower is in default, but that does not matter, it only matters if the LOAN is in default, which is not possible.

4.         TRUSTS must have 3 separate parties:

         TRUSTEE, TRUSTOR, BENEFICIARY:

No one can be two parties; no attorney can represent 2 parties; that’s called conflict of interest. So if MERS claims they are the TRUSTEE then they lied when they claimed they were the Beneficiary. TRUSTEE must be registered and real, fake TRUSTEE does not exist in law.

         5.         The FIDCUIARY duty is EQUAL to all parties:

So how can the TRUSTEE be issuing fraudulently notarized documents to help the Beneficiary and screw the Trustor? It is not like a divorce; where the woman gets the gold mind and the man gets the shaft.

         6.         A COMPLAINT for BREACH OF FIDCUCIARY DUTIES puts the onus probandi on the FIDUCIARY (TRUSTEE) to prove he has NOT violated his duties:

The notary complaint is sufficient prima facie evidence (even if not answered; it’s the complaint not the response that counts) to initiate the suit.

10 Responses

  1. CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA- deed of trust has MERS BOTH as Nominee and beneficiary. trustee is CB SERVICES CORP, RICHMOND VA. does not exist.

    AFTER FORECLOSURE- filed in clerk office APPOINT OF SUBSTITUE OF TRUSTEE . document states MERS as beneficiary and owner of the original note and deed of trust. MERS appoints DRAPER AND GOLDBERG as substitute trustee. NOTARY PUBLIC IS FROM INDIANA. Notary public does exist.

    4 MONTHS LATER- trustees deed states= Draper and goldberg, substitute trustee, Aurora loan services grantor( they are not the originator) bidder Fannie Mae.

    hired an attorney 2.5 years ago did absolutely nothing to the case, worst of all he was not liscense to practice in Virginia. former attorney out of Washington D.C. I filed a complaint at bar association he is disbarred to practice law n d.c.lost home while i was paying attorney lost everything money and property. It s been 3 years, I cannot afford an attorney.

    Please advise, don’t know what to do?

  2. What is a notary complaint? Is there any case law on this approach or example to review?

  3. TRUSTEE- I was looking at my land record instruments. Home foreclosed 3 years ago. I notice land records instrument they filed after foreclosure has the TRUSTEE as a GRANTOR does this make sense? Can anyone tell me why we have a trustee on the deed of trust. 2nd question, the deed of trust we received when we did the closing says ” The deed of trust is given by (our name) ” I do not recall preparing a deed of trust nor did a chose a trustee. can anyone answer these 2 questions.

  4. TRUSTEE’S BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES- Property located in Virginia- according to the post regarding complaint for trustees breach of fiduciary duties. Does it also apply to Substitute trustees? MERS is on my deed of trust as a nominee and beneficiary, which we all know they have no legal standing to foreclose. MERS is a strawman.. Does the above complaint apply to Substitute Trustee?

  5. OCC ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS 1/1/2000 – 8/2011

    Bank of America, National Association Charlotte, NC C&D 4/13/2011
    OCC: 2011-048 DOCKET NUMBER AA-EC-11-12

    2 Bank of America, National Association Charlotte, NC FA 2/9/2005
    2005-10 2/27/2007 OCC: 2007-012 DOCKET NUMBER AA-EC-04-35

    3 Bank of America, National Association Charlotte, NC FA 12/7/2010
    OCC: 2010-239 NO DOCKET#

    4 First National Bank Of America East Lansing, MI FA 8/13/2001
    2001-57 8/28/2003 OCC: 2003-133 NO DOCKET#

  6. OCC ‘ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS SEARCH TOOL FOR WELL FARGO:

    1 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association Sioux Falls, SD BCMP
    $115,000 6/27/2005 OCC: 2005-77
    DOCKET NUMBER: AA-EC-05-43

    2 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association Sioux Falls, SD BCMP
    $51,205 5/8/2009 OCC: 2009-063
    DOCKET NUMBER: AA-EC-09-18

    3 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association Sioux Falls, SD C&D 4/13/2011 OCC: 2011-051 DOCKET NUMBER: AA-EC-11-19

  7. OCC ENFORCEMENT 8/19/2011

    Civil Money Penalty Orders; Formal Agreements, Restitution Orders

    2011-105
    JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Columbus OH 7/6/2011

    2011-108 JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association, Columbus OH 7/6/2011

    Searched OCC Enforcement Actions Against JPM 1/1/2000 – 8/2000

    OCC PROMISES “These lists are NOT guaranteed to be comprehensive ”

    1 JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association Columbus, OH BCMP
    $2,000,000 6/14/2011 OCC: 2011-094 Docket Number: AA-EC-11-57

    2 JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association Columbus, OH BCMP
    $22,000,000 7/6/2011 OCC: 2011-105 No DocketNumber

    3 JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association Columbus, OH C&D
    Cease & Desist 4/13/2011 OCC: 2011-050 DOCKET# AA-EC-11-15

    4 JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association Columbus, OH FA 7/6/2011 OCC:2011-108 No Docket #

    Enforcement Action Types:

    C&D Cease & Desist Order
    Banking organizations subject to cease and desist orders are required to take actions or follow proscriptions in the orders. 12 U.S.C. § 1818(b).

    BCMP Civil Money Penalty Order
    Banking organizations subject to civil money penalties must pay fines. 12 U.S.C. § 1818(i)(2)

    FA Formal Agreements
    Banking organizations that are subject to formal agreements agree to take actions or follow proscriptions in the written agreement. 12 U.S.C. § 1818(b).

    QUESTION: WHY WERE NO ‘FORMAL AGREEMENTS’ Executed?
    Banking organizations that are subject to formal agreements agree to take actions or follow proscriptions in the written agreement. 12 U.S.C. § 1818(b).

    QUESTION: WHY WERE NO ‘NOTICES FILE?’
    Notices Filed (NFB): Banking organizations against whom an “OCC Complaint” (in the form of a Notice of Charges and/or Notice of Civil Money Penalty Assessment) is filed have an opportunity to litigate the matter before an Administrative Law Judge. 12 USC § 1818(b) (Notice of Charges) and 12 USC 1818(i) (Notice of Civil Money Penalty Assessment)

    QUESTIONS: WHY WERE NO PROMPT CORRECTION ACTION DIRECTIVES ISSUED: PCAD:
    Banking organizations that are subject to prompt corrective action directives are required to take actions or to follow proscriptions that are required or imposed by the OCC, under section 38 of the FDI Act. 12 U.S.C. §1831o.

    QUESTION: WHY WERE NO SAFETY & SOUNDNESS ORDERS (SASO) ISSUED:?
    (SASO): Banking organizations that are subject to safety and soundness orders are required to take actions or to follow proscriptions that are imposed by the OCC under section 39 of the FDI Act. 12 U.S.C. §1831p-1.

    QUESTION: WHY WERE NO SECURITIES ENFORCMENT ACTIONS ISSUED? SEB:
    Banking organizations that are engaged in securities activities, such as municipal securities dealers, government securities dealers, or transfer agents, can be subject to various OCC sanctions, including censures, suspensions, bars and/or restitution, pursuant to the federal securities laws

    QUESTION: WHY WERE NO INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATED PARTEIS (IAP’S) (INCLUDES INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITEIS AS DEFINED IN 12 U.S.C. § 1813(u))
    •1829 Notifications (1829): IAPs who have been convicted of, or entered into a pretrial diversion or similar program for certain criminal offenses are notified by letter that they are prohibited from participating in the affairs of any insured depository institution without prior regulatory or judicial approval by operation of law. 12 U.S.C. § 1829.

    •Cease & Desist Orders against Individuals (PC&D): IAPs who are subject to cease and desist orders are required to take actions or follow proscriptions in the orders. 12 U.S.C. § 1818(b).

    •Civil Money Penalty Orders against Individuals (CMP): IAPs who are subject to civil money penalties must pay fines. 12 U.S.C. § 1818(i)(2).

    •Formal Agreements (FA): IAPs that are subject to formal agreements agree to take actions or follow proscriptions in the written agreement. 12 U.S.C. § 1818(b).

    •Notices Filed (NFI): IAPs against whom an “OCC Complaint” (in the form of a Notice of Charges, Notice of Intent to Prohibit/Remove, and/or Notice of Civil Money Penalty Assessment) is filed have an opportunity to litigate the matter before an Administrative Law Judge. 12 USC 1818(b) (Notice of Charges); 12 USC 1818(e) (Notice of intent to Prohibit/Remove); and 12 USC § 1818(i) (Notice of Civil Money Penalty Assessment).

    •Removal/Prohibition Orders (REM): IAPs who are subject to prohibition orders are prohibited from participating in the affairs of any insured depository institution without prior regulatory approval. 12 U.S.C. §§ 1818(e) or 1818(g).

    •Restitution Orders (REST): IAPs who are subject to restitution orders are required to reimburse banking organizations or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for losses caused or for unjust enrichment. 12 U.S.C. §1818(b).

    •Securities Enforcement Actions against Individuals (SEI): IAPs who are affiliated with banking organizations engaged in securities activities, such as municipal securities dealers, government securities dealers or transfer agents, can be subject to various OCC sanctions, including censures, suspensions, bars and/or restitution, pursuant to the federal securities laws.

  8. No one can be two parties; no attorney can represent 2 parties; that’s called conflict of interest. So if MERS claims they are the TRUSTEE then they lied when they claimed they were the Beneficiary. TRUSTEE must be registered and real, fake TRUSTEE does not exist in law.

    MERS is the note. The physical note was tendered. MERS is an electronic conversion of the obligation lost to its original form and substance.

    MERS is a party to the origination where shown on the Deed of trust or mortgage

    MERS is a transferee of the obligation back to the party it represents in formation.

    MERS is one in the same to the party shown on the face of the contracts at the closing and settlement.

    MERS is the note holder in electronic form and assignee in a foreclosure to the party it represents from the time of origination.

    MERS is the means and method for divestiture.

    MERS permits the conversion of notes basis in asset into a common ownership and then is further diluted into various classes of senior subordinate shares.

    MERS allows the registrants to “cull” substituted notes for notes that default as if the loan was rejected by the purchaser at the transfer date.

    MERS is the “deleted: loan from the master servicer’s records.

    I have reviewed the pooling and servicing agreements and purchase and sale agreements. I am familiar with every aspect of a securities offered in a collateralize Private Placement. I have also reviewed the temrs and conditions for deleting a mortgage from its original contribution in a SPV.

    The foreclosure is brought by a concealment of materiel fact by the transferee , itself to itself as an assignee for party awarded the impaired asset subsequent to its liquidation. The subject income stream never leaves the trustees under a claim and duty held by trustee to a statutory business trust .

    If MERS is accepted as the notes replacement the opposition can never bring a note into court again.

    Keep fighting this fact

    expert.witness@live.com

  9. It’s so simple, even a cave man can do it. This is how I will proceed. Thank you for the information.

  10. I’m assuming that the trustee referenced here is a trustee in a securitized loan (as in “Deutsche Bank Trust 2006-xxx).
    Would this also work in a “deed of trust”, non-judicial state (Virginia) where the original trustee was substituted through forgery/fraud and an assignment to the current “creditor” does not exist? The current substitute trustee works for the “pretender lender” and is a foreclosure mill (Shapiro & Burson).

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: