California Leads as Nation Braces for Another Foreclosure Push


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


Editor’s Comment: 

Despite successful legislation in Nevada, Hawaii and other places that have required proof of transactions (actual exchange of money) and proof of authentic documentation, the number of foreclosures is heading up with California leading the way.

Legislators should ask themselves why foreclosures dropped so precipitously in states requiring proof rather than proffer from the lips of lying lawyers. If the foreclosures were legitimate, then nothing shoud have changed. Instead, the foreclosures just went away. Why would a bank walk away from its collateral? Maybe because there was no collateral. I have already strongly advised that the mortgage liens have never been perfected.

Perhaps the retreat of the banks reveals what we have been saying all along — there is no debt secured by any mortgage lien. Thus there can be no foreclosure.

Foreclosure filings up in most markets

RealtyTrac: distressed homes ‘coming out of hibernation’


The number of homes hit with foreclosure-related filings picked up during the first three months of the year in more than half of markets tracked by public records aggregator RealtyTrac, “an early sign that long-dormant foreclosures are coming out of hibernation in many local markets,” the company said.

The number of homes subjected to some type of foreclosure filing increased in 114 of 212 markets with populations of 200,000 or more, compared to the fourth quarter of 2011.

Foreclosure-related filings were up from quarter-to-quarter in 26 out of 50 of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas, including Pittsburgh (up 49 percent), Indianapolis (up 37 percent), Philadelphia (up 30 percent), New York (up 24 percent), Raleigh, N.C. (up 23 percent), and Virginia Beach, Va. (up 22 percent).

Many industry analysts expect loan servicers to step up the pace of foreclosures in some markets as they put the “robo-signing” controversy behind them.

But foreclosure filings have dropped off dramatically in other markets. The total number of homes subjected to foreclosure-related filings nationwide fell 2.25 percent from the fourth quarter of 2011 to the first quarter of 2012, and 15.9 percent from the same time a year ago.

During the first quarter, a total of 572,928 housing units — 1 in every 230 — were subjected to a foreclosure-related filing, either a default notice, scheduled auction or bank repossession. That was the lowest total since the fourth quarter of 2007,  RealtyTrac said in a report earlier this month. The biggest quarterly decreases in foreclosure activity among the 50 largest metro areas were in Portland, Ore. (down 28 percent), Las Vegas (down 26 percent), Providence, R.I. (down 24 percent), Salt Lake City (down 22 percent), Boston (down 21 percent), and San Jose, Calif. (down 21 percent).

Eight of the top 10 metros with the highest foreclosure rates during the first quarter were in California. Stockton and Modesto topped the list with foreclosure filing rates of 1 in 60 housing units each.

Stockton topped the list despite a 13.3 percent decline in the foreclosure rate from the previous quarter, and an 18.9 percent drop from a year ago. Modesto saw similar improvement, with an 8.14 percent drop in foreclosure activity for the quarter and a 21.48 percent plunge for the year.

Top 10 U.S. metros with highest foreclosure rates, first quarter 2012

Area Foreclosure rate (First Quarter 2012)
U.S. 1 in 230 housing units
Stockton, Calif. 1 in 60
Modesto, Calif. 1 in 60
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Calif. 1 in 62
Vallejo-Fairfield, Calif. 1 in 63
Merced, Calif. 1 in 72
Sacramento-Arden Arcade-Roseville, Calif. 1 in 77
Bakersfield, Calif. 1 in 81
Las Vegas-Paradise, Nev. 1 in 82
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Ariz. 1 in 87
Visalia-Porterville, Calif. 1 in 89

Source: RealtyTrac

Riverside-San Bernardino, Calif., topped RealtyTrac’s list of foreclosure activity in the nation’s 50 largest metros, with 1 in 62 of its housing units in some stage of foreclosure during the first quarter of 2012.

Seven other metros among the nation’s 50 largest had foreclosure rates more than twice the national average: Sacramento, Calif. (one in 77 housing units), Las Vegas (one in 82 housing units), Phoenix (one in 87 housing units), Atlanta (one in 90 housing units), Miami (one in 95 housing units), Orlando (one in 101 housing units), and Chicago (one in 107 housing units).

33 Responses

  1. @Tony, +: what exactly are you waiting for?

  2. nabdulla,

    I am too waiting for the challenge, but the major problem with this is that guest lawyer is Google. People like that will just put out remarks with no backing of case law, transcripts, they will just sit in front of there computers looking for information.

    This site is suppose to be about getting the information out and discussing case law and talking about what it means and how to challenge it. Instead we get people like Guest that just says oh yeah well your a poo poo head. What kind of help is that.

    I issued a challenge and what was the reply… Google? No wonder people can not defeat these mass liquidators. We don’t research anything but whats just on Google. Even Supreme Court Judge Thomas said to understand what the judge was thinking in a case you must do more than read the case you must read the transcripts too.

  3. @Tony +: try this in Google: “”Legal definition of defeasible”” (with quotes)

  4. @ guest

    “tony, on May 1, 2012 at 10:56 am said:
    I dont know what you are trying to do but you are flat out lying…. Please explain to what defeaseable vs mortgage means and please give case law not just state cases either.”

    I, for one, am anxiously awaiting your response to the challenge.

  5. Foreclosure push — under continued foreclosure fraud.

    Battle of power. Fraud not disclosed yet. It will come, once those who are still trying to benefit by the fraud, end their campaign. .

  6. If you want to understand more about defeaseable vs mortgage read this case:

    11 U.S. 218; 3 L. Ed. 321; 1812 U.S.

    This describes it in depth and it is from Justice Marshall so it does have heavy weight.

  7. (Excuse me if I do not know “legalese” or fully understand the jurisdiction and precedents of various rulings. I just sincerely wish to communicate with anyone who knows legalese and also anyone who doesn’t and try to understand these things better.)

    So just saying this appears to be what we are up against in CA. The state courts are ruling as per Calvo and backing up the banker attorneys who cite Stockwell ect. They are saying that Section 2932.5 does not apply to deeds of trust. In a recent ruling in the state appeals court the judges entered a footnote:

    “7 We are cognizant that there continues to be a controversy among the various federal courts concerning whether section 2932.5‟s limitation to mortgages continues to be viable given the similarities between mortgages and deeds of trusts. The issue is one that the Legislature may wish to consider.”

    Haynes vs EMC ect.

    The ruling in this case (and discussion of trustee) is in direct contrast with this judge’s ruling in two cases for instance:

    In a case decided on April 12, 2011in California, Eleazar Salazar, Debtor, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for the C-BASS Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-CB2the judge said:

    “….The outdated distinction between mortgages and deeds of trust is especially moribund in the context of borrower’s rights in the nonjudicial foreclosure context…

    …Civil Code section 2932.5 must therefore be applied to deeds of trust to ensure trustors are provided the same protection as mortgagors under California law. The borrower concern addressed by Civil Code section 2932.5-that it be able to identify the assignee of its loan-is more exigent, not less, than it was during the Great Depression, when Bank of Italy was decided. Problems with the residential mortgage foreclosure process have been widely chronicled.”

    In the opinion for Cirilo E. Cruz, Plaintiff, v. Aurora Loan Services LLC et al., August 11, 2011, the California judge said (excerpts in no particular order):

    “….For the same reasons as a mortgagee must record its interest before it forecloses, so must a beneficiary of a deed of trust under § 2923.5. The ministerial role of the trustee does not justify any distinction between the two instruments for purposes of § 2932.5 because the trustee as agent simply acts at the direction of the beneficiary….”

    “…This reasoning of Stockwell is now inapposite. Under Monterey, 49 Cal. 3d at 461, a deed of trust is no longer a conveyance of actual title to the Property, but merely a lien. The borrower now retains actual title to the property. Bank of Italy Nat. Trust Sav. Assn. v. Bentley, 217 Cal. 644, 656 (1933). That this title theory is discredited by the Supreme Court is recognized by the Ninth Circuit. Olympic Federal Sav. LoanAsso. v. Regan, 648 F.2d 1218, 1221 (9th Cir. 1981) (mortgages and deeds of trust are “legally identical,” so that the borrower retains actual title to the property that the Internal Revenue Service can redeem despite the presence of a junior deed of trust). See also Aviel v. Ng, 161 Cal. App. 4th 809, 816 (2008) (to interpret a subordination clause in a lease, the terms mortgages and deeds of trust were treated as synonymous based upon Bank of Italy, 217 Cal. at 656)……

    …..The trustee is bound by no fiduciary duties, and has no duty to defend the rights of the beneficiary, or authority to appear in the suit in its behalf. Id. at 462. The trustee of a deed of trust serves merely as a common agent of both parties. Vournas v. Fidelity Nat. Tit. Ins. Co. 73 Cal. App. 4th 668, 677 (1999). Because the beneficiary’s economic interests are threatened when the existence or priority of the deed of trust is challenged, it is the real party in interest under a deed of trust. Monterey, 49 Cal. 3d at 461 (trust deed beneficiary must be named in a mechanics lien foreclosure suit since trustee does not protect its interests). See also Diamond Heights Village Assn., Inc. v. Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corp., 196 Cal. App. 4th 290, 304 (2011) (beneficiary is the real party in interest in a fraudulent conveyance action to void the security).”

    I would like to know how the original (defunct, bankrupt ect)beneficiary can be named on a NOD filed simultaneously and or after there has been an ADOT naming the trust as the benefciary or for that matter even after a response to a qwr that names an indentured trustee bank for a trust as “investor” (they never identify the trust – this happens in the ADOT if they even bother with an ADOT in CA and when it is recorded it is from servicer to the trust A-D which is an impossible and some would say fraudulent act). The trustee on this document (NOD) is the trustee on the original DOT. What is their relationship and authority to declare a default occurred to the trust now named as beneficiary? They are not declaring it actually. They are declaring the default occurred to the original beneficiary who was paid in full years before the homeowner was ever delinquent and there was nothing due that party after that. Who can provide the beneficiary statement as per California Civil Code 2943 (what you get from the servicer is not that and it does not come from the “beneficiary” or the beneficiary’s records). This must be done in timely fashion. If you request as per law within two months of the NOD and there has been no substitute trustee – is the original trustee on the DOT authorized to represent the trust as a trustee and proceed to enforce the power of sale based on the NOD or not? NOD shows a “Trustee Sales No.” all ready to go by the DOT trustee who the servicer refers to in phone conversations as “the attorney”.

  8. @tony

    “Have you ever tried suing your “trustee” for breach of duty, to have counsel and the judge give you this: “A trustee is not a trustee in the true sense, but merely an agent”. If they have and I know they did then out of the horses mouth they just said this is a mortgage that has redemption rights, and this is not defeasable. Thus like the lawyer and judge said there is no real trustee in this matter, thus no power to sell clause can be invoked because there is none.”

    Thank you! Wish to understand this more.

    This relates. This is an excerpt from a recent CA federal judges opinion re the two different kinds of trustees and their roles and most important their liability (real party of interest?) – very clear explanation:

    Vogan v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 WL 5826016 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

    “…..a) Application of 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g) to Trustees
    U.S. Bank argues that as a general rule, trustees are not subject to TILA in California because trustees have limited liability in California’s non-judicial foreclosure process. Plaintiffs respond that U.S. Bank cannot both foreclose on their home, thereby claiming a beneficial interest in the note securing Plaintiffs’ loan, and simultaneously claim that it is not a creditor subject to TILA’s provisions.

    Under California law, the trustee of a deed of trust has no beneficial interest in the mortgage associated with the deed of trust. Heritage Oaks Partners v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 510, 514 (Ct. App. 2007). The trustee for a deed of trust has only two duties: (1) to foreclose the deed of trust upon default, or (2) when the secured debt is satisfied to convey the deed of trust to the borrower. Id. Due to the limited duties and lack of beneficial interest assigned to the trustee of a deed of trust, federal courts in California hold that TILA does not apply to the trustee of a deed of trust. Guerrero v. Citi Residential Lending, Inc., No. CV F 08-1878 LJO GSA, 2009 WL 926973, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2009) (holding that TILA does not apply to the trustee of a deed of trust and explaining that the limited role of such a trustee under California law precludes TILA liability).

    U.S. Bank’s argument conflates the trustee of a deed of trust with other types of trustees. To support their position, U.S. Bank cites Wilson v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. C 11–03394 CRB, 2011 WL 3443635, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2011). Wilson does support U.S. Bank’s position but is without citation to any Ninth Circuit authority. Id. (citing Hargis v. Wash. Mut. Bank, No. C 10-02341 CRB, 2011 WL 724390 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2011)). The Hargis case cited by the Wilson court involves the trustee of a deed of trust, not a traditional trustee or as in this case the trustee of a mortgage backed security. Hargis, 2011 WL 724390, at *2.

    It appears that the Wilson court failed to note the distinction between a trustee of a deed of trust and the trustee of a mortgage backed security, as well as the basis for the rule exempting the trustee of a deed of trust from TILA. The trustee of a deed of trust is exempt from TILA because of its limited role under California law, but there is no analogous reason to exempt other types of trustees from TILA’s provisions.

    The potential breadth of U.S. Bank’s position is easily illustrated by hypothetically granting limited liability to a common law trustee. Under the common law of trusts, a ―trustee is subject to personal liability to third persons on obligations incurred in the administration of the trust to the same extent that he would be liable if he held the property free of trust.‖ Restatement (2d) of Trusts § 261. This common law rule shows a stark contrast between the duties of the trustee of a deed of trust, as limited by California law, and those of a common law trustee. A traditional trustee holds title to trust property and is responsible for omissions related to the administration of that property. Exempting all trustees from TILA would permit trusts acting as lenders to completely evade TILA’s provisions.

    Further, as Plaintiffs point out, U.S. Bank was assigned the ownership interest in the loan by the January 11, 2011 assignment, meaning that U.S. Bank is Wells Fargo’s purported assignee. MTD, at 2. As an assignee, U.S. Bank falls squarely within 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g), which creates liability for the assignees of the loan’s original creditor if the assignee fails to notify the borrower of the acquisition. 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g).

    The Court declines to follow the Wilson court’s decision with respect to TILA liability of trustees. The trustee of a deed of trust enjoys limited liability because it only has two duties in the California statutory foreclosure process, but there is no legal basis to support a holding that limits the liability of all trustees in this manner.

    Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have properly alleged that U.S. Bank as trustee for WFMBS 2005-AR12, a mortgage-backed-security, is liable for violations of TILA.”

  9. @Tony: sorry, but you seem totally lost. Don’t pretend you understand cases. Plus, even if you have a case favorable to you courts ignore it because judges were bought long in advance. Why then two million homes were non-judicially foreclosed in Ca, without a whisper?

  10. Guest

    I dont know what you are trying to do but you are flat out lying. This has nothing to do with after the fact. This is with before the fact. Please explain to what defeaseable vs mortgage means and please give case law not just state cases either.

    People stop reading wiki and google and get to your law library. TOO many people come on here distorting the truth.


    “…Lenders may also be investors who own an interest in the mortgage through a mortgage-backed security. In such a situation, the initial lender is known as the mortgage originator, which then packages and sells the loan to investors. The payments from the borrower are thereafter collected by a loan servicer…”

    So, this is the LIE on wikipedia…that some “loan” is sold to “investors”…

  12. We have to figure out a way to legally sabotage these criminals stealing our houses…and then post the step by step methods for everyone. It begins and ends in the county recorder’s offices…’cause the lawyers aren’t doing jack…except taking everyone’s money.

  13. @Tony: sheeple right. In Ca. one single recording can pretend a sale, or foreclosure!.Tony’s case appears to be only about deficiency judgment after non-judicial foreclosure

  14. Tony & TNharry,

    I think we are getting closer to the truth. Can someone break it down a little more for those of us who are a little slow HA.

    Tony said, ” We know “securitized trustee” are not trustees because of FDIC and MAIDEN LANE.” How do we know this? I have raised this question before. How can a securitzed trustee be both the “owner” (for certificate holders) and the “trustee”. I understand the trustee is supposed to hold a form of title but how does a secruitized trustee not qualify as a trustee? Can anyone explain this?

    Also, at what point does a QFC become a non QFC? Is it qualified at the beginning and the securitization makes it NON QFC? or does it become a non-QFC when it is transfered or assigned to the servicer?

    Sorry but I’ve been trying to grasp new ideas. This stuff is like a foreign language and needs to be read and reread. The mainstream media doesn’t cover much of this and it’s been blogs like this who have helped those of us fighting.

    Thank you!

  15. Not california law but the issue of defeaseable vs mortgage is what can be used nationwide. Supreme court rule this since the days of justice Story.

  16. @tony – i was following that right up until you said that California law can apply to other states as well. not so. it can be persuasive, but the farther away from California one goes, the less persuasive it becomes.

  17. tony- like

  18. California has some of the best case law on foreclosures, but it is hidden within the so called “halls of justice”. You must go back deep into California case law to find the truth and read the transcripts.

    Money is the res in a lis pendens action, not property.The right to recover money due is assignable. a chose in action, or claim, when assigned, carries with it the debt thing claimed,as far is ownership is concerned, but contracts requiring personal performance, though embracing rights, are not assignable. All causes of action are not assignable. A right to sue in tort, is not, nor a claim for damages. The transfer of such rights or claims would carry with it no certain property. The assignee would have no remedy to exercise against any sure debt or property, since he could not suceed to the purely personal right to sue for tort or injury, or to obtain damages for a wrong done to another.

    Remember the servicer, nor the “trust” have a right to sue you for your property. This kind of action is not assignable period. There is solid case law for 100’s of years. The real party in interest, jurisdiction is based on these principals.

    The law in california is a DEED OF TRUST is nothing more than a mortgage with the power to sell. A mere encomberance. Defeasable purchase, no equity of redemption.Redeemable mortgage, equity of redemption.

    This means if you have the right to redeem it is a mortgage and not a deed of trust. There is no power to sell clause in a mortgage. If you do not have the right to redemption then it is defeasable. Meaning the trustee can use power to sell clause. No modern day mortgage is defeasable.

    In an ordinary mortgage foreclosure action, the cause of action set out in the complaint is the debt evidenced by the promissory note, and the amendment of such complaint to set forth the facts of the intervening sale under a power of sale and the application of the proceeds to the debt and to recover the balance still due,does not state a new cause of action, but is an action to recover the same debt, evidenced by the promissory note, as was the basis of the original complaint.

    *(Commercial Centre Realty Co. v. Superior Court of San Francisco, 7 Cal. 2d 121)

    Meaning California is not a non judicial state but Judicial state. I know this might sound to good to be true but I’ll prove it. Have you ever tried suing your “trustee” for breach of duty, to have counsel and the judge give you this: “A trustee is not a trustee in the true sense, but merely an agent”. If they have and I know they did then out of the horses mouth they just said this is a mortgage that has redemption rights, and this is not defeasable. Thus like the lawyer and judge said there is no real trustee in this matter, thus no power to sell clause can be invoked because there is none.

    They can not go to court because the right to sue is not transferable in performance contract, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear their claim. They have a NON QFC that means no security is attach to it. We know “securitized trustee” are not trustees because of FDIC and MAIDEN LANE.

    The information is out there you must seek it, PLEASE go to your law library and read California case law, and the transcripts. With this knowledge you can defeat these mass liquidators playing the games they do sometimes with the courts help.

    This post isn’t just for California but every state as well I just put in case law for Cali because this is about Cali.

    In short remember

    REDEMPTION RIGHTS= MORTGAGE (judicial action must be taken)

    DEFEASEABLE= NO REDEMPTION THIS HAS THE POWER TO SELL CLAUSE IN IT (no judicial action needs to be taken)

    Lawyers study and find out if I am correct in this. You will find out I am, then when you find out WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

  19. @all: …Recording is way simpler: Ex- Jill forges a TRUSTEE’s DEED UPON SALE on each of your houses and records it, and your houses are hers!!!… That is what title company robo-signers (DOCX/LPS/…) have been doing with millions of such docs. But, this is how they record their forgeries in batches of thousands at a time: they have accounts with county recorders. Every morning they buy several thousand county recorder bar-code-stamps by email. then by computers they transfer one bar-code to each page and email the completed forgeries in one pdf-file back to the recorder. Recorder’s computer date-stamps each page & they are deemed recorded!!! County Recorders never see these docs!!!! In fact many of the robo-signed docs don’t even have recorders stamps at all, because they just came out of their printers… in that case they do the recordings after stealing the property…

  20. Dave, on April 30, 2012 at 10:05 am said:

    “you only need to record a NOD, SOT, and NOTS in CA and you can foreclose on anybody.”

    Exactly. And don’t forget the ADOT with notice required by law from the beneficiary which never happens.

    The whole process can proceed automatically with no judicial review in 111 days from the filing of the NOD.

    There is no possibility of defense. You have to sue and be the plaintiff and the burden of proof is on you… except the proof, even the note is held to be the “proprietary” and “confidential” property of the forecloser and irrelevant to the homeowner by the courts. So all of the above is true even if you go to court. The recorded documents are considered irrelevant, anyone’s name can go on the NOTS and what is recorded or not almost always goes completely un-noticed by all in most counties.

    In CA and other non-judicial states they can speed it up just because they can. Thinking they will do this (now that they have paid their dues for robo-signing to the AG’s not)…..anyone – are there any reasons they might not speed it up? I am of the opionion it will help the economy to stop foreclosures by doing whatever it takes – not the other way around (even if you discount there has been fraud in the process).

    Those paying on time are quickly going underwater in greater and greater numbers when property values have dropped 50% or more or even only 30%. One day when they short sell they will have to pay the gain on their windfall “profit” to the IRS even if the lender forgives it (which they don’t have to do at least not if there has been a refinance). If they ever took cash out for any purpose, and many did over decades not just in recent years, they will have to pay taxes on that also. Is that correct? Are there different rules for different states?

  21. Seems like these foreclosures are from HAMP, HARP, ARMS and recent Re-Fi’s that established new contracts with paperwork that is not lost.

    Something is distorted in this.

    People still losing jobs and unemployment runs out for most within a time frame.

    This new wave is probably more legit.
    I wish more info was provided.

    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, People, State, sovereign, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  22. Hello Neidermeyer,

    Good question. If you find out please let us know. Also, how did you get an answer from the SEC? My FOIA request only gave me a pooling and servicing agreement. Where did you find that every note needed to be stamped paid and AIG paid them off?


  23. When you sign a MERS DOT are you bound to the current rules at the time of closing or the most current rules? I’m wondering which ones apply?

  24. @ ALL ,


    I’ve been looking at a Morgan Stanley “trust” identified by the “” people for a relative .. What’s funny is that the loan in question is fixed rate and SEC id’d it as being in a variable interest trust… Other than finding out if it was previously paid off by AIG my first move was to read the portion covering transfer (surrender/deposit of security docs) of the note and the creation of the certificates … What’s funny is that I have never seen it spelled out before that it is covered by NY State UCC Section 8 (I guess the others I have seen just left it implied) … Where can I find definitive black and white law regarding the point that the deposited notes being deposited in return for $$$$$$ must be marked cancelled/paid in full or similar.

  25. Dunt dunt dahhhhhhhh…..

  26. fofthemany,

    Can’t wait for tomorrow when riots, demonstrations and everything start happening everywhere. I, like you, won’t go down easily.


    Writer is not an attorney. Writer has taken this information from a real debtor in foreclosure in California and read their documents.

    In California, debtors and their attorneys need to be presenting documents to the court evidencing that the note and deed of trust must be together.

    Here are examples of a California Bank of America Deed of Trust and note and adjustable note rights of a debtor that is being foreclosed upon..:

    Page 2 of Debtor’s Deed of Trust, “Lender is the beneficiary under this security instrument.” “Trustee is PRLAP Inc.” Note means the promissory note signed by borrower and dated ________. The Borrower has promised to pay this debt. Loan means the debt evidenced by the Note, plus interest, any prepayment charges and late charges due under the NOTE and all sums due under this Security Instrument plus interest.”

    page 3 of the Deed of Trust, Uniform Covenants, Borrower and Lender covenant and agree as follows: 1. Payment of Principal, Interest, Escrow Items, Prepayment Charges and Late Charges. Borrower shall pay when due the principal of, and interest on, the debt EVIDENCED by the Note and any prepayment charges and late charges due under the Note. ”

    Page 13 of debtors deed of trust, Reconveyance, item (23), “Upon payment of all sums secured by this Security Instrument, Lender shall request Trustee to reconvey the Property and shall surrender this Security Instrument and all notes evidencing debt secured by this Security Instrument to Trustee.”

    Debtor believed the “trustee” PRLAP Inc, was to hold the note and deed of trust, or if sold, another entity would represent to be the current lender and another Trustee would be the holder of the note and the Deed of Trust.

    The original note and deed of trust, evidenced by page 12, section 20. “ Sale of Note; Change of Loan Servicer; Notice of Grievance. “The note or a partial interest in the Note (together with the Security Instrument) can be sold one or more times without prior notice to the Borrower. A sale might result in a change in the entity (known as the Loan Servicer”) that collects periodic payments due under the Note and this Security Instrument and performs other mortgage loan servicing obligations under the Note, this Security Instrument, and Applicable Law.”

    Debtor believed if sold, the Original Note, representing the “negotiable” aspect of this loan, accompanied by the deed of trust, would follow “together” in the event of a sale. Debtor trusted the original lender to protect her negotiable note at all times, as falling into the wrong hands, another party could record ownership of debtors home. Debtor trusted lender, Bank of America, N.A., and PRLAP Inc. to keep these originals in a safe place, or if sold, the new owner of debtor’s documents would be held securely also.

    (Try taking a photo copy of a five dollar bill and buying milk and bread…that won’t work. A “copy” is not a negotiable instrument. Yet, the california legislature is allowing this)

    the Servicing agreement, dated May 31, 2007, between Bank of America Funding Corporation (the depositer) and Bank of America N.A. as the servicer, section 2.14, Trustee to cooperate. Upon the payment in full of any BANA Mortgage Loan or the receipt by the Servicer of a notification that payment in full will be escrowed in a manner customary for such purposes, the Servicer or the Master Servicer will immediately notify the Trustee, or, at the direction of the Trustee, the Custodian, by delivering, or causing to be delivered, two copies (one of which will be returned to the Servicer with the Mortgage File of a Request for RELEASE .

    Upon receipt of such request, the Trustee or the Custodian, as applicable, shall within seven Business Days release the related Mortgage File to the Servicer. The Trustee shall deliver to the Servicer the Mortgage NOTE with written evidence of cancellation thereon.

    Debtor believes the Servicing agreement explicitly explains the Need for the Trustee to “hold” the Mortgage Note, and to deliver to the Servicer the Mortgage Note with written evidence of cancellation or payment in full. Debtor believes her Mortgage Note is either misplaced in storage, or the note was never presented to the Trustee in 2007 and was possibly sold a second time or more to other investment trusts.

    Whereby, without producing the Mortgage Note original, the Debtor is unable to pay off in full her Mortgage Note because of the Trustee’s failure, the Depositers failure, and the servicers failure to produce the negotiable original Note. Debtor also believes the Trustee’s, Depositers and Servicers have failed to secure the collateral of the Mortgage Note and to hold and preserve the Mortgage Note, whereby harming the investors as well as the mortgagor.

    Page 3 of the Adjustable Rate Rider, item (f), Notice of changes, the Note Holder will deliver or mail to debtor a notice of any changes in the interest rate….. “

    Debtor believes the noteholder to be PRLAP, Inc. until _____2012 when U.S. Bank recorded a substitution of trustee. This is contrary to the Servicing agreement, which required U.S. Bank to be the noteholder May 31, 2007.

    Page 4, item 11 of the Adjustable Note,Secured Note. In addition to the protections given to the Note Holder under this Note, a Mortgage, Deed of Trust, or Security Deed dated the same date as this Note, protects the NoteHolder from possible losses which might result if debtor does not keep the promises made in this Note. The security Instrument describes how and under what conditions debtor may be required to make immediate payment in full of all amount debtor owes under this NOTE. ”

    Debtor feels the Deed of Trust is merely instructions as to how to hold or proceed with actions that violate the DOT or the NOTE. . Without the NOTE where is the security?

    Modification: Debtor could never get a signed or recorded copy of the modification. Per the Service and Pooling agreement of 2007, the trust required approval and recordation of this document. Debtor has information and belief the Servicer failed to sign and record this document in an attempt to not have to disclose this to the trust.

    Under the Deed of Trust pg. 12 Section 20, Sale of Note, The note with the Security Instrument can be sold. The sale may include a new servicer who “collects payment due under the NOTE AND the Security Instrument and performs other mortgage loan servicing obligations under the Note, this Security Instrument and Applicable Law.”

    Debtor believes the importance of the Original Note is an absolute in a foreclosure action. This evidences the promise to pay. The Deed of Trust does not. A “photo copy” of the NOTE is no longer a negotiable instrument.

    All questionable items found in the DOT, Notes, and PSA are not fully disclosed here. But it is suggested that it might be very helpful to read your contracts before jumping to an attorney. To be proactive is a necessity, unfortunately, and takes time.

    If this is a duplicate of previous postings, please accept my most humble apologies.

  28. oops apology for the crappy spelling… get a little shaky when dealing with this BS

  29. Yes enraged there are more with firarms than on paper and no it will not end well the people aare loosing everything adn we will not go down easily, we will fight until there is no reason to fight at least in this arena

  30. It is not going to end well… 320 millions inhabitants in this country. 290 millions privately-held firearms.

  31. you only need to record a NOD, SOT, and NOTS in CA and you can foreclose on anybody.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: