REGULATION C FILING WITH OCC MAY HAVE JUST WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article corroborates something I have been saying since October, 2007. If you get a chance to do discovery on any of the originating lenders you will see the same thing over and over again for nearly all the loans made 2000-2009: the loans were not booked on the balance sheet, they were instead booked on the income statement.

This seemingly innocuous statement tells the whole story from start to finish. If the originator was the lender, as it said it was at the closing with the homeowner, then it would have shown a loan receivable on its balance sheet, a reserve for default on its balance sheet, and some income items in originating the loan. As is reported below, under Regulation C, the originating lender would also report to the regulator that it had loaned you money. But that isn’t what happened.

In terms of booking the transaction for purposes of reporting in their SEC filings and the regulator filings, they only show the transaction as income and only booked it on their income statement, with no entries on the balance sheet. That means they performed a “service” for which they received a fee. Based on that they might just as well have slipped in the name of the mortgage broker, the title agent, the closing agent on the note and mortgage or Donald Duck. It really doesn’t matter. The fact is that for all purposes OTHER than closing they did not report the transaction as THEIR LOAN. BUT SOMEBODY ELSE DID — SOMEBODY NOT DISCLOSED OR SHOWN ON ANY CLOSING DOCUMENTS.

In my opinion that means something. The Banks who control the narrative have the regulators all flustered about it being just a paperwork problem. But the law says otherwise and common sense says otherwise. And this isn’t rocket science. They lied about the identity of the lender and recorded it in the property records of the country in which the property was located. Remember we are talking about the documents here, not the actual obligation, which I agree exists with or without proper documentation.

False documents that contain false statements about the transaction are subject to various levels of enforcement against the perpetrators under Federal (TILA) and state (deceptive lending practices etc.) law. But that is not what I am talking about here. I’m talking about the fact that if the documents were false, the “best case” scenario for the banks is that they must sue to reform those documents to have them correctly state the lender’s identity and request that the Court issue an order that does in fact change the documents so that a real lender and a real borrower are shown BEFORE any enforcement action can be undertaken. That IS the law in every state as far as I can see.

In the “best case” scenario for the Banks, the order from the Judge would relate back to the date of the funding of the loan. And in that scenario the loan would then be documented by the promissory note — if it contained all required disclosures of the securitization process, which would be a whole addition to the the terms of the note. So that would “cure” the note problem which at the present time is unenforceable. Then in the “best case” scenario for the Banks, the order of the Judge would relate back to the time of closing WITH all the new terms and identification of parties.

That still leaves the mortgage, which is a separate agreement that is recognized as neither the note nor the obligation, but an instrument that is incident to the note. That too would need to be reformed with reference to either the note or the obligation as amended by the Court’s order and that too would need to relate back to the time of the funding. But here is a catch. Recording the mortgage, as amended by court order would take place whenever the court order was entered. AND THAT is why the mortgage could not be enforced against the homeowner for any acts that took place or any “breaches” that took place before the second time the mortgage was recorded with all the court-ordered changes.

The worst case scenario for the Banks is what most jurisdictions already follow: you cannot re-write history to suit you and correct fraud by later disclosure in most instances. THAT would leave the investor/lenders with a bare claim for money loaned without documentation or a secured lien on the property.  Investors have universally steered away from getting involved in foreclosures because it would subject them to claims of predatory lending and fraud. So they have effectively abandoned claims against homeowners in favor of suing the banksters. But the banksters are foreclosing as if they are following the direction of the investors when in fact they are only doing it for themselves. And THAT, my friends, is the whole story.

BY ANONYMOUS

One of the key issues I have been scratching my head about my loan is that Annual Reports filed by First Union in 2002, 2001 brag about the fact they exited the subprime lending market loan, but my loan was definitely subprime because of its adjustable rate features.   Having an accounting degree, I am always seeking to verify, match, etc.  (I get frustrated with attorneys who just believe everyone will be honest in depositions/testimony and never verify) so I sought how to independently verify the lender.

Come to find out that there is a little known item known as Regulation C that exists to assure lenders comply with fair credit reporting.  Banks are required to submit to their regulator, Wachovia’s case (2002) the OCC a data file of ALL loan applications, including amount, dates, application number, refinance, etc and even now if the loan is being sold.  The public data file than can be purchased from the FFEIC redacts the application number and date but leaves enough information so if you know your address, you can see if a loan in your amount, to a white male, with x income, was made for refinance, in your census tract by your lender.

Funny thing, Wachovia did not report any loan in my amount in my census track in 2002.  However, Lehman and Equity One reported such a loan. [editor’s note: with money they had from investor/lenders who remain undisclosed]

Because I know the date of my loan application, date of closing and the loan/application number is on my application, HUD and closing documents, I attempted a FOIA request to with the OCC to identify my lender.

The first response from the OCC was that no such information was collected.  After I wrote them back and supplied them with Regulation C and their own instructions for what/how to transmit data, I was told that I could not have access to the information because it was not ‘public’ and therefore would not be disclosed under Exemption 5 of the FOIA.

My immediate thoughts are how in the world would the OCC or any auditor know that banks were simply not making this shit up?  The bank  could open a fake file under the under any name and as long as they transmitted the false data, the OCC would be none the wiser.  The regulator is not even attempting the kick the tires.

This may be the easiest way to find for a person to find their true lender and hammer a bank for reporting false information to regulators, but the regulators believe they should not have to disclose this information to the applicant.  This is another great example of the regulators not doing their job.

37 Responses

  1. M.Soliman

    You said that ” The matter is argued as a conversion of the note into common stock held under GAAP FAS 140. The divestiture of assets is prima faciae evidence under URS Code that is SCREAMING out to you to win your home back. Is this a reporting requirment for a “C” or is it “A” —get what I say”

    when I read FAS 140 it makes mention that once the promissory note has been converted into a stock it is forever a stock and can not be converted back into a promissory note?

    Am I Getting close

  2. Just in case anyone is wondering, the ANONYMOUS that wrote the above post is not me – the original ANONYMOUS.

    So sorry to disappoint you, Cowboy, how I know you love to attack. But, it is not ME.

    I should have chosen a name other than ANONYMOUS when I first started posting here, but I did not, and many came to know me as ANONYMOUS so I stayed with it.

    Now, I have to to share the name.

  3. ANYBODY NOT LIVING IN CALIFORNIA, NEVADA OR MASSACHUSETTS — TAKE HEED

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/75883473/ACTION-ALERT-TO-NON-CALIFORNIANS-NON-NEVADANS-YOUR-RIGHTS-WILL-BE-TAKEN-AWAY

  4. This post started out extremely interesting and then got hijacked. There are two items in all of the discussions that are relevant, but still no answer is provided. Does anyone know:

    1. What the name of the FFEIC database is?
    2. How to order it?
    3. Can it be found online?
    4. Can it be ordered online?
    5. How much does it cost?

  5. I would love to be able to know how to do this search also if anyone has any insight please share.

    M.Soliman thanks for your insight into my DOT questions. I’d like to dig a little deeper into the DOT. My lender is out of business. My trustee merged with it’s parent company. It looks likes it’s a subsidary of LandAmerica Financial Group. I don’t know if the fact they may have changed names/merged is irrelevent or not?

    If all parties on my DOT are either Defunct or changed isn’t that relevant? The only “original” parties on my DOT is myself and MERS. My belief is under contract law the agency relationship between my lender and MERS was terminated once the lender went out of business. My servicer has stated I was aware of a MERS DOT and agreed to it by signing the DOT. My answer will be the Relationship was terminated.

    So if I am the only original pary left on the transaction where to I go from here? Any thoughts?

  6. RE: The post by Anonymous.

    You say,

    “Come to find out that there is a little known item known as Regulation C that exists to assure lenders comply with fair credit reporting. Banks are required to submit to their regulator, Wachovia’s case (2002) the OCC a data file of ALL loan applications, including amount, dates, application number, refinance, etc and even now if the loan is being sold. The public data file than can be purchased from the FFEIC redacts the application number and date but leaves enough information so if you know your address, you can see if a loan in your amount, to a white male, with x income, was made for refinance, in your census tract by your lender.”

    Then, you later in the post say,

    “I was told that I could not have access to the information because it was not ‘public’ and therefore would not be disclosed under Exemption 5 of the FOIA.”

    Can this be clarified, as it seems you claim to be able to see all the “data” and that it “Can be purchased”, yet then you say, they refused to disclose it?

    it seems you got the information from this FFEIC, and the OCC refused to provide corroboration. Do you have the exact link to the FFEIC portal for a person to pay for this info.

    “He will never be God”
    Martha Raysik.

  7. Neil- your last several posts/editorials seem to be slanted toward telling the banks how to cure there issues to make life harder for the borrowers.

  8. usedkarguy,
    Ahhh yes, the biggest problem for Fraudclosure victims in California, JUDGES. If only they could all be removed instantly by the will of We the People…

  9. okay Maher, I have the late assignment post f/c and post CH7 filing. What if the judge doesn’t want to hear it. I’ve been warned that the sentiment is not good “… on lien avoidance litigation; (and) believes that it has no chance of success, if for no other reason than that it would bring down a good portion of the entire mortgage industry. ”

    Hey, Judge, I don’t want a free house. I just don’t want it stolen. Give them three years for the Real party in interest to show up, what did you call that? stipulated right of claim….

    this is what we are up against.

  10. NPV: here’s your answer to the “criminals” question:

    POSITION INFORMATION : XXXXXX Legal has a large corporate financial client immediately seeking candidates to participate on a 2 – 3 month electronic document review assignment in Milwaukee. The review will be a minimum of 40 hour work weeks and will require people to work onsite at the review location and during normal business hours (i.e., no work from home option). Previous experience on document review projects or familiarity with financial and/or loan agreements is preferred but not required. Pay rate is competitive.

    Company: XXXXXX Legal

    Status: Full Time
    Temporary/Contract/Project

    Job Category: Legal

    Career Level: Student (High School)

    Contact Information

    Contact Name: XXXXXX Legal

    Let me ask you a question: How many high -school students familiar with financial contracts and documents (assignments, allonges, DOT/MTG, standing,) will they find?

  11. Yeah, right—“caught off guard”…more like no one “guarding” the financial hen-house once Glass-Steagall was repealed…and the wolves came to play…and gorge…and gorge…and gorge…and they are still killing and gorging…

  12. Neil, sometimes it is simply “what it is”. it does mean something!. It means that the Sponsor acted as lender versus the “agent bank” These small correspondent lenders never took the loans onto their balance sheet at closing since they never funded with their own money.

    I have been screaming about this for years. These banks allege to have acted in a dealer capacity at closing when in reality they drew down off a warehouse line of fictional monies provided by or all people warehouse banks. The banks would typically work separate operations for origination and wholesale lending facilities.

    In any event, the loans were already accounted for at he end of the food chain, thus no risk, and unfair mark-up for providing a room to fund in and a set of documents produced by another third party like Wolters Kleur or docx. Either way these glorified mortgage brokers were selling the SRP at 108 on subprime. The originator banks would mark the loans another two points and the special purpose bank would also mark the loans another 1.5 -2 points depending on UPB pool size and what their cost of SRP would be on the sale to the pool,typically another .75 basis points. Greed, greed greed. if we merely cut out the middlemen investors could still make great money on mortgage pools, even with rate hovering under three. They could still fetch 112 on premium loans with a nominal rate close to 8%.

    What I really want to know is why nobody has been indicted besides the low-end white collar thief like the brokers and small lenders. I guess it pays to steal as much as possible and than make movie that claimed the larger banks were too big to fail,and that they were all caught off-guard. Answer one simple question; if you were all caught off-guard why did you short every pool of loans beginning in 2006. a full two years before the crimes destroyed the monolines and the Untied States taxpayer. Are we even untied as states anymore, or just one enormous central policy maker allowing us to believe we are independent.

  13. “…[editor’s note: with money they had from investor/lenders who remain undisclosed]…”

    OMG, Neil—security investors ARE NOT THE CREDITOR/LENDERS!!!

    sigh…

  14. @Anonymous,

    In that case, they should have been paying income tax on it, right? Did they? I don’t believe so… Actually, everything was reported as a loss, wasn’t it?

    How can it be both?

    Why isn’t a regular accountant with a simple degree and a solid common sense auditing all that and coming back with meaningful and clear insights on what was caused to happen and how to (possibly) remedy it?

  15. Quote — “they only show the transaction as income and only booked it on their income statement..”

    Collection rights only to GSE default/reject.

  16. OT…..do u think the banks will eventually stop paying the property taxes for these fraudclosures ????

    People are “on” tonight with their questions. The Beast is hungry as always. But a little nervous with the quality of questions I see coming in.

    OT – Huge subject matter concerning the new rules of abandonment. Del. Property tax is the only standing I see for forfeiture . . . but not a right to declare a property abandoned.

    Question: When is the IRS your best friend.

    The answers are there if you can recognize them. They are there and free for the taking.

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

    Not intended as legal advice. The Information and subject matter topics are for discussion only. Only a licensed attorney can offer legal advice and is qualified to agree or contradict any and all comments made herein . Call your state bar for more info.

  17. M. Soliman

    Question for you.

    Why have I never seen a homeowner who is fighting a foreclosure name the supposed “investor” in their lawsuit? That is, let’s assume the loan was supposedly packaged into a Countrywide deal – CWALT 2015-10 and we’re talking about BofA as servicer, BONY as Trustee. Easy to find the CUSIP’s that go with that deal. Trace the CUSIP’s to owners (can be done). Let’s say you find that TIAA reports they hold one of the CUSIP’s.

    Why is it when the homeowner files, the will list as defendants BofA, ReconTrust, BONY – but they never sue the actual bond holder?

    Thank you in advance for your thoughts.

  18. What about a trustee on a deed of trust?
    M.Soliman: Moot point -Title Company no longer around.

    What would happen if your title company (trustee) on your dot changed names (merged whatever)?
    M.Soliman: Under ca rules a trustee is a fiduciary and not a trustee- nothing there.

    In my case transactions name was changed to lawyer’s title however this has never been made known to me and my recorder still shows transaction as the trustee.
    MSoliman-Look for substitution of trustee forthcoming

    If the trustee becomes “insolvent” or changed and it’s not recorded does the deed become wild?
    MSoliman-No weak argument in even a best day in court.

    Or will the pretender lender claim the information is stored in the MERS database and doesn’t have to be recorded?
    MSoliman-Pretender lender is not important. Who is the alleged servicing agent?

    I asked aurora in a QWR who the “creditor” was and they responded the original lender was the one listed on my dot and deutsche was the current “owner” of the loan.
    MSoliman-Huge question huge!

    However according to the PSA deutsche is the securitization trustee on behalf of the certificate holders.
    MSoliman-Huge subject matter – substantive basis for arguments (you’re locked on target friend…

    It’s not clear who deutsche is in this transaction if anything?
    MSoliman: Survey say’s no don’t let go of this argument….

    Also isn’t it a conflict of interest for a trustee to have the option to buy credit default swaps.
    M.Soliman: Wow – what brought that up? Great question for another reason – huge

    Isn’t a trustee supposed to be a neutral 3rd party?
    MSoliman: Not if it owns your home already …ahhh….okay; next!

    My PSA states they have the option to purchase swaps.
    WTF?
    MSoliman-European markets love fixed rates to five years and American markets LIBOR.

    But the credit default swaps remind me alot of a warehouse line. Hmmmm a five year bond , swaps LIBOR, all wrapped into a long term warehouse line.

    Look at the late assgnement and forget the RoBo deal.

    M.Soliman
    expert.witness@live.com

  19. Thanks, dee. cariemac9@aol.com

  20. How do you shut off a blow torch? By turning off the gas, right?

    How do you destroy banks? By turning off the money flow toward congress and Washington. Stop paying taxes of any kind. The money stops. Someone will start paying attention…

  21. OT…..do u think the banks will eventually stop paying the property taxes for these fraudclosures ????

  22. my loan closed june 2007…..there are no assignments from closing to present…….mortgage direct from BOA but the clerks recording says COUNTRYWIDE……..WHAT ?????……..the rabbit hole goes so deep that we will wind up in China

    PS….. POST OF THE YEAR

  23. JAY. Iam a disabled elder in bankruptcy court on my own, Pro se.

    Wells Fargo sold my loan to a trust(s) in 2004. Nevertheless, they have filed an NOD and a Notice of Foreclosure Sale and followed me into bankruptcy alleging they are the “secured lenders” and “creditors” in MANY pleadings. and Proof of Claims. Although that is not true, and I produced the Securitization Audit that clearly demonstrates one trust Wells Fargo sold my loan to in 2004 (which has allegedly already been paid off by insurance) the Judge allowed the Bank to dismiss my “Adversary Complaint” although Wells Fargo does not even have the right to be in bankruptcy court, by the bankruptcy court’s own laws much less to dismiss a complaint. They also dismissed a complaint that had other parties than the Wells Fargo troops.

    What to do? Seems like Pro Se’s, in spite of the US Supreme court laws, really have no rights in our courts. One mistake and the is kicked out, while the many lies and trickery and fraud by lawyers and banks are completely overlooked. It certainly appears that Wells Fargo has an inside role in the bankruptcy court in San Francisco. Anyone have any thoughts on what to do about this?

  24. if it’s part of the PPIP, you’ll never get disclosure. too politically incorrect for these (insert your favorite pajorative) to have their cover blown

  25. @Anonymous,
    I too would like more detail on how to find this! I looked up my bank of “record” and did not find my loan on the reported list – so I guess that means that they were acting on behalf of someone else, right? But how do I find that someone else? That’s what I need step-by-step direction on.
    Thank you in advance!

  26. 12-15-2011
    California Congressmen write letter to Obama in support of Kamala Harris not going along with multi-state settlement

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/75812809/12-15-11-California-Congressmen-Write-to-President-Obama-in-support-of-AG-Kamala-Harris-not-going-along-with-multi-state-setllement

  27. @carie

    I would like to share some information with you do have a email address?

  28. I sent this letter to my servicer—just for the heck of it—to see how he would respond—what a surprise—no response:

    WHO IS REAL CREDITOR—I WANT TO PAY FULL AMOUNT TO REAL CREDITOR—I HAVE THE RIGHT TO PAY REAL CREDITOR UNDER FDCPA–FAIR DEBT COLLECTIONS ACT—YOU ARE IGNORING MY REQUEST—

    I HAVE RIGHT TO KNOW AND PAY REAL CREDITOR—NOT DEBT COLLECTOR—UNDER TILA AMENDMENT:

    Under TILA— the Truth and Lending Act (Amendment), 15 U.S.C. 1641 (g), it is required that the CURRENT Lender/Creditor, with contact information, be provided. Further, the Federal Reserve Opinion to the TILA Amendment is available for your review as to definition of LENDER/CREDITOR. Please see 74 Federal Register 60143 (November 20, 2009) Final Rule 75 Federal Register 58489 (September 24, 2010).

    ONEWEST,FSB IS NOT CREDITOR—

    INDYMAC IS NOT CREDITOR—-

    DEUTSCHE “SECURITIES INVESTOR” IS NOT CREDITOR—

    AZTEC IS NOT CREDITOR—

    WHO IS REAL CREDITOR?

    I WANT TO PAY FULL AMOUNT TO REAL CREDITOR—WHO IS REAL CREDITOR?

    I DON’T WANT TO PAY A DEBT COLLECTOR—I HAVE THE RIGHT TO PAY THE REAL CREDITOR—

  29. Sorry M Soliman but you lost me. Maybe I’m slow.

    Anyway, I think this is a good post if you can get the information but it doesn’t seem like that is happening.

    What about a trustee on a deed of trust? What would happen if your title company (trustee) on your DOT changed names (merged, whatever)? In my case Transnations name was changed to Lawyers title however this has never been made known to me and my recorder still shows Transnation as the Trustee.

    If the Trustee becomes “insolvent” or changed and it’s not recorded does the deed become wild? or will the Pretender lender claim the information is stored in the MERS database and doesn’t have to be recorded?

    I asked Aurora in a QWR who the “creditor” was and they responded the original lender was the one listed on my DOT and Deutsche was the current “owner” of the loan. However according to the PSA Deutsche is the Securitization Trustee on behalf of the certificate holders. It’s not clear who Deutsche is in this transaction if anything? Also isn’t it a conflict of interest for a trustee to have the option to buy credit default swaps. Isn’t a trustee supposed to be a neutral 3rd party? My PSA states they have the option to purchase swaps. WTF?

  30. FAS140 – one cannot sell an asset to oneself…

  31. ANONYMOUS

    First I did verify your accounting degree from Anonymous Atropolus University. If not unanimous its anonymous that you’re ominous is highly onerous.

    No really . . .gibberish friend!. You points for argument must to attack subject matter with purpose and a need to translate substance into your pleading. RESPA REG X, RESPA SEC 8, table funding and moot need for assignments arguably draw attention to the subsequent sale and assignment brought back late into trust. This is what renders Mers Corp. as a wasted argument.

    MersCorp has standing and cannot be defeated. I have said this – Why? Mers Corp. is MOOT to the argument. There is no need for an assignment or doing an endorsement for that endorsed to oneself where both entities are the same. If you’re an attorney and avoid this argument – woe to the case where error and omissions will surface for matter plead. BAC is a defacto with Countrywide in every funding the two conducted.

    Boot Camps and Food Stamps won’t help you max out your claim. UCC and UFC are just that. It’s all good but avoid the argument for divestiture of assets that prohibits a foreclosure under the notes original form and substance. The FDIC repudiatory power is applied to foreclose on an interest in a claim and not an interest in title. The IRS 1099 filings at completion of sale are for subsequent satisfaction done “Pro tanto” as to liquidation claims prior to foreclosure on a interest in title left intact.

    The matter gravamen is arguably set forth in allegations of the formation of the deal structure, divestiture of one asset to another and the natural progression into a borrower debtor “Guarantors” relationship. The emergence of the gratuitous surety is upon pledge of securities for the registrants requirements for liquidity. Its a reversal of fortune and take the time to ponder here what I have said.

    The matter is argued as a conversion of the note into common stock held under GAAP FAS 140. The divestiture of assets is prima faciae evidence under URS Code that is SCREAMING out to you to win your home back. Is this a reporting requirment for a “C” or is it “A” —get what I say ? It’s a forced liquidation scheme by forfeiture on one hand and eminent domain right of claim by government that is hidden by procedural adherence to state rules for conducting a lawful foreclosure. Why? Why not one or the other?

    Anonymous – refute what I tell you here and save it for later review….you’re not getting it Brother Dan or Sister Stan, whatever you are.

    M.Soliman
    Expert.witness@live.com

  32. POST OF THE MONTH.

  33. http://www.kcsg.com/view/full_story/15313345/article-St–George-Homeowner-Eviction-Case-Moved-to-Federal-Court–?instance=home_stories2#ixzz1X2kdKuy3

    St. George Homeowner Eviction Case Moved to Federal Court
    by Morgan Skinner, KCSG News Published – 09/04/11 – 12:29 PM

    (St. George, UT) – ReconTrust Company, the foreclosure arm of Bank of America (NYSE: “BAC”), accused of illegal foreclosures against Utah homeowners, moved a state court eviction case to federal court Friday claiming exemption to State law. (Case 11-00801)

    Utah homeowner, Alexis K. De Azevedo II, represented by St. George attorney John Christian Barlow, said in the counter claim and complaint that the Bank of America through ReconTrust Company knowingly conducted a non-judicial foreclosure sale of the property in Washington, Utah, and recorded a Trust Deed in favor of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) adverse to De Azevedo. The complaint asserts that ReconTrust knew the Trustee’s Sale was fraudulent since it’s neither a member of the Utah Bar Association or a title insurance company required by Utah law.

    Fannie Mae is attempting to evict De Azevedo from a home in which it has no interest because of the bogus Trustee Sale conducted by ReconTrust, according to the counter claim.

    The defendant (De Azevedo) seeks injunctive relief enjoining Fannie Mae from eviction pending a resolution of the ownership issue. The counter claim asks for actual, special and statutory damages to be determined by trial.

    Last week a senior Utah federal judge ruled that there is a serious question of whether ReconTrust has violated state law, Judge Bruce Jenkins issued an order barring further foreclosure activity in that case in which a non-judicial foreclosure sale was planned for August 30, 2011. Court Order

    Bank of America has reportedly shutdown foreclosures in Salt Lake County, according an article in the Salt Lake Tribune and in Summit County, according to The Park Record where foreclosure notices are published in Park City.

    Meanwhile, the Utah Attorney is said to be negotiating a settlement with the Bank of America for its alledged illegal foreclosure activity against Utah homeowners as a result of a May 19, 2011 letter from the Attorney General in which the bank is accused of using ReconTrust Company, in violation of Utah law as set forth in Utah Code Sections 57-1-21 and 57-1-23, which outlines the requirements for lawful non-judicial foreclosures.

    The attorney general cited legal precedent for his position in a recent 10th Circuit case, Shurtleff v. Kleinsmith in which Utah Code Sections 51-1-21 and 57-1-12 were found to be constitutional. Shurtleff said, that ReconTrust is in violation of the National Bank Act, which does not allow national banks to operate in contravention of State and local law.

    The Utah Attorney General said that ReconTrust’s exercise of fiduciary powers in the State of Utah is not only a violation of State law, but also applicable federal law.

    Read more: KCSG Television – St George Homeowner Eviction Case Moved to Federal Court

  34. my loan closed march 2006 there are no assignments on the court web site what should I expect to see?

  35. @Anonymous,

    I love that kind of information but would you walk us step by step through finding out anything? Most of us want to present every relevant information in court and the more evidence we have that a specific law or many specific laws were circumvented brings fuel to our fires.

    Instead of throwing info, could we please decide that we will not only share it piece meal but also teach each other where to find it?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: