Arizona Appeals Court Reverses Direction: Dismissal of Borrower’s Claims Reversed

JOIN US TONIGHT AT 6PM Eastern time on The Neil Garfield Show. We will discuss this decision and other important developments affecting consumers, borrowers and banks.

Congratulations to Attorney Barbara J. Forde!!

HIGHLIGHTS: Steinberger v Hon. McVey/OneWest

Discharge of Debt — money that OneWest received from FDIC to pay off loss on loan discharges the debt. If it is true that the FDIC has already reimbursed OneWest for all or part of [the borrower’s] default, OneWest may not be entitled to recover that amount from [the borrower}. This corroborates what we have been writing in this blog regarding third-party payments and the existence of co-obligors. To the extent that third party payments have been received by the creditor this court is saying that nobody can collect those same payments (on the same debt) from the borrower.

Unconscionability: Procedural and Substantive: Unfair surprise and fairness, respectively, are the main elements. This opinion raises the possibility of bringing claims that might have been barred by the TILA Statute of Limitations. Pleading requirements are strict. But if you read the decision you can tell that there is room for borrowers to oppose enforcement of contracts that produced sticker shock and other unfair surprises.

Quiet title: This Court concluded that you can’t quiet title based upon the weakness of someone else’s claim. You must allege your right to title and that the parties served have no claim.

Negligence Per Se: Opening a whole new area for litigation this Court concluded that negligence and negligence per se, were valid causes of action for damages and other relief in connection with the handling of modification and other requests.

Negligent Performance of an Undertaking:  This court concluded that the borrower has a cause of action is the lender or the lenders agents or representatives Lord her into defaulting on her loan with the prospect of a loan modification and then negligently administered her application for the modification, causing her to fall so far behind on her payments that it was no longer possible to reinstate her original loan. Borrower must allege that she never obtained a loan modification and that the bank’s conduct ultimately led to the foreclosure on her home.

Good Samaritan Doctrine:  Lender may be held liable under the Good Samaritan Doctrine when a lender or its agent or representative induces a borrower to default on his or her loan by promising a loan modification if he or she defaults. If the borrower in reliance on the promise to modify the loan subsequently defaults on the loan and the lender fails to process the loan modification or due to the lender or agent or representative’s negligence the borrower is not granted a loan modification and the lender subsequently forecloses on the borrower’s property. Note: this is in Arizona decision and is subject to review by the Arizona Supreme Court. It is not dispositive as to all actions in Arizona and can only be used as persuasive authority in other states or federal court.

 Cause of action to avoid a trustee’s sale: The Hogan decision was considered governing but as we pointed out when the decision was made, the Arizona Supreme Court went out of its way to say that  the borrower never alleged that the trustee lacked the authority to conduct a trustee sale and therefore its decision did not address this issue. This court points that out and upheld the borrowers cause of action to avoid a trustee sale based upon the claim that the trustee did not have the authority to conduct a sale of the property. The reasoning behind this decision may well apply in judicial states as well.

 This decision needs to be analyzed carefully. I have only just received it. In the coming days I will provide additional analysis.

47 Responses

  1. Assuming attorney Findsen meant “dead right”, I am entirely honored that something I have been hollering about for 5 years has been noted by someone of her caliber.

  2. First, congratulations to Barbara Forde on fighting hard for this decision. Also, in my opinion, John Gault is dead in his assessment of how the trustee is an integral part of the three-party deed of trust and how this role is perverted when the trustee is but an extension of the bene. When the trustee is not neutral, there is no protection for the borrower for the privilege of letting the beneficiary conduct a non-judicial sale. It’s simply a 2-party mortgage with a mortgagor (borrower) and a mortgagee (creditor). This law review article that I wrote about on my blog describes this and other issues with trustee neutrality (or lack thereof) quite well.

  3. First, absent an affirmative allegation by the borrower that the trustee or beneficiary is not, in fact, the “true” trustee/beneficiary, the trustee or beneficiary may conduct a trustee’s sale without having to demonstrate his authority to foreclose. Hogan, 230 Ariz. at 586, ¶ 5, 277 P.3d at 783.

  4. RE” Our conclusion is supported by the supreme court’s decision in Eardley v. Greenberg, 164 Ariz. 261, 792 P.2d 724 (1990). In Eardley, a borrower/trustor filed an action to set aside a trustee’s sale on the grounds the notice of substitution of trustee was defective. Greenberg, the beneficiary who executed the notice, and the alleged successor trustee, Investment Security, Inc., filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Id. at 263, 792 P.2d at 726. The supreme court reversed, holding that a triable issue existed as to whether the substitution was defective, because the notice may have been signed by Greenberg without authority or permission from one of the other beneficiaries.

    In reaching this conclusion, the supreme court stated:
    The trustor, trustee, and beneficiary are inextricably interconnected links in the chain of title to real property. Each has certain rights, legal or equitable, separated from the complete bundle of real property rights . . . the trustee is the holder of legal title . . . [T]he beneficiary holds an enforceable lien on the property. The trustor possesses the bulk of the bundle of rights”


    Interesting .. Yep!

    ” because the notice may have been signed by Greenberg without authority or permission from one of the other beneficiaries.”

    One of the Other Beneficiaries? .. You don’t say….

  5. CA Civ. Code 1058

    Redelivering a grant of real property to the grantor, or canceling it, does not operate to retransfer the title.

  6. Hint:

    1.Filing a Trust Agreement alone is not Perfection.

    2. Filing a Trustees Deed alone (without the Trust Agreement) is not perfection.

  7. That Steinberger case is full of goodies (case law, etc). Well worth the read and d/l’ing for anyone imo. I think the fact that she wasn’t the borrower (inherited prop) and tried in good faith to mediate the situation played a role in the courts decisions, but I can’t know to what extent. In other words, I think the court wanted to support her position and looked for the approp law to do so, something most courts won’t do, even as they should. Her payments went up majorly as a result of prob some stinking teaser rate – which led to, my thoughts, “impossiblity of performance”* – I think that’s an aff defense but don’t really know what all it’s good for, if anything, on these deals. But I wanted to make note of this from P. 16:

    “…the UCC does not govern liens on real property”.

    The statute of frauds certainly does, which is why interests in real prop require a writing, and as KC’s good material alluded to, delivery is the bomb for deeds: no delivery, no transfer. I have wondered if this applies to deeds of trust (it IS a deed, the ‘deed’ in dot), but still don’t know, i.e., must the deed of trust be delivered (and to whom – to the trustee v the ben?) and then must assignments of the ben interest in the dot be delivered to the assignee to be effective or again to the dot trustee (I do recall assignments, just like deeds, require acceptance and doesn’t that imply delivery?) The reason, or one of them, delivery and acceptance are necessary for a deed is to protect everyone involved. In a nutshell, if a lawsuit is coming up, say, involving real property, a grantee may not want to be a grantee. As to notes and dots, there may well be assignee liability unwelcome by an assignee.

  8. How Should My Home be Owned: In Trust or Out of Trust?

    A Handout for Couples

    Six ways to own your home:

    (a) in a revocable trust with both spouses as beneficiaries (there is no protection from creditors)

    (b) in an irrevocable trust (there could be protection from creditors)

    (c) in a land trust with both spouses as beneficiaries (there is no protection from creditors if you are both sued – but if only one spouse is sued, then there can be protection by the land trust document stating that the beneficial interests are owned as Tenants by the Entirety – unless you owe the IRS)

    (d) as joint tenants (joint tenants with right of survivorship)

    (e) as tenants by the entirety (which is only available for a husband and wife, and only as to their principal residence – provides a lot of protection from creditors if one spouse owes money, unless it is owed to the IRS)

    (f) as tenants in common (but then the property doesn’t automatically to the survivor if one dies)

    (g) a separate trust for the spouse who is less likely to be sued

    (i) in the individual name of the spouse who is less likely to be sued

    (j) in a land trust with the sole beneficiary being the spouse who is less likely tobe sued

    1. What is a revocable living trust?

    A revocable living trust is a trust set up during your lifetime, which you can change or cancel as you desire. (“Revocable” means that you can amend or terminate the trust.) For most people, the main advantage of establishing a revocable trust is to avoid probate of the client’s assets (in other words, to allow the client’s assets to be distributed to the client’s designated beneficiaries without court involvement). Assets owned by the trust aren’t subject to going through probate at your death. Some people also like the idea that the trust is more private than a will. A original will must be filed with the probate court after a person’s death, whereas a trust document doesn’t have to be filed with the court. (Please note that a revocable trust doesn’t provide any protection if you enter a nursing home and seek Medicaid benefits. Please also be aware that if your home is in a revocable trust, there is no protection if you are sued and lose a lawsuit.)

    2. What is an irrevocable trust?

    An irrevocable trust is a trust that either cannot be changed, or can be changed only in minimal ways (such as changing the trustee). A common type of irrevocable trust is an irrevocable life insurance trust (established so that the life insurance proceeds paid at the client’s death are not considered a part of his/her estate for inheritance tax purposes). If your assets (counting life insurance proceeds) aren’t over $1 million, then you don’t need to even consider an irrevocable life insurance trust.

    3. What is a land trust?

    A land trust is a trust that can only “own” land. A land trust cannot own bank accounts, investment accounts, stocks, bonds, or other assets. Land trusts are allowed in Illinois, Florida, and a few other states (but not in most states). Often a bank or trust company is the trustee, but individuals can also serve as trustees of a land trust. You can serve as trustee of your own land trust (or have a family member serve as the trustee). Two advantages of a land trust are: (a) having the property in a land trust will avoid probate if the client dies, (b) a land trust can provide some measure of privacy as compared to a living trust (especially if when you purchase the property a bank is the trustee from the beginning).

    4. Advantages of Owning the Home in a Revocable Living Trust

    1. You are sure to avoid probate of the home.

    2. Compared to a land trust, the revocable living trust can own various types of assets. (A land trust can only own real estate.)

    5. Disadvantages of Owning the Home in Revocable Living Trust

    1. You don’t have the protection that tenants by the entirety gives you in case one of you is sued (but not the other spouse). {In Illinois, a husband and wife can own their principal residence as “Tenants by the Entirety”. If one of them is sued, and not the other, then by having the home owned as tenants by the entirety there is protection for the spouse who is not sued, unless it is the IRS that is suing the couple.}

    2. If you put your home into a revocable living trust (after you have initially purchased the property), then your title insurance coverage may not extend to the trust. In other words, when you bought the home, you were given a title insurance policy to protect you in case any of the following were to occur: (a) the seller didn’t own part or all of the property, (b) there were any liens against the property because of something the seller did. {You can contact the title insurance company that prepared your title insurance policy, and for a fee, it will probably issue you a new title insurance policy to protect the property in the revocable living trust. If you recently bought the property, you might desire to pay for a new title insurance policy. If you have owned the property for 20 or 30 years, then you may not want to consider spending money on a title insurance policy.}

    6. Advantages of Owning the Home in a Land Trust

    1. You are sure to avoid probate of the home

    2. You can continue to have the tenants by the entirety protection (which a revocable living trust cannot provide)

    3. You may be able to gain some measure of privacy compared to having the property owned in your name or in a revocable living trust.

    7. Disadvantages of Owning the Home in a Land Trust:

    1. If a bank or trust company is the trustee, then you will pay a annual fee to the trustee. (You need not use a bank or trust company as trustee. A person, such as yourself, your adult child, or even your attorney could serve as the trustee.)

    2. When you want to sell the property, the bank will have to be contacted to prepare the deed (and there may be an additional fee for such service).

    Questions and Answers:

    1. Do I continue to get the homestead exemption (for real estate tax purposes) if the property is in a revocable living trust or a land trust?

    Yes, you continue to get the homestead exemption (as long as you continue to reside in the property as your principal residence).

    2. Do seniors continue to get the senior citizen homestead exemption (for real estate tax purposes) if the property is in a revocable living trust or a land trust?

    Yes, seniors continue to get the senior citizen homestead exemption.

    3. Do I get the $250,000 exclusion ($500,000 exclusion in the case of couples) for capital gains taxes if I sell the home and the home is in a revocable living trust or a land trust?

    Yes, the IRS stated so regarding revocable living trusts in private letter ruling 199912026 issued by IRS in 1999.

    4. Does my title insurance coverage continue if I transfer the property into a revocable living trust or a land trust?

    No, the title insurance coverage probably doesn’t continue. However, you can contact the title insurance company that provided you with title insurance coverage when you bought your home, and for an additional fee, they will issue you a policy to cover the home in a trust.

    5. What if I presently have a mortgage against my home? Will transferring the home to a revocable living trust or a land trust allow the lender to call the loan due (meaning that the lender can demand full immediate payment of the loan)?

    A 1982 federal law (the Garn/St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 – 12 U.S.C. section 1701j-3) states that you may transfer your principal residence to a trust and you will not have to pay off the loan as long as (a) you continue to reside in the home as your principal residence, (b) you are the beneficiary of the trust.

    6. What if I presently have a mortgage against the property which is not my principal residence (such as a vacant lot, commercial real estate, or a rental property), and I transfer the property into a trust? Can the lender demand that I pay off the loan?

    If you transfer property to your trust which isn’t your principal residence, then hypothetically the lender can demand full payment. I haven’t heard of this happening so far, but it is a possibility. If you desire, you can contact the lender and explain what you plan to do, and ask the lender to sign a document stating that the lender won’t demand full payment if you transfer the property into a revocable trust (or a land trust).

    7. What if we decide to refinance and the property is in a revocable living trust or a land trust?

    If you refinance, the lender will probably want you to take the property out of trust before you refinance – which is done by you signing a deed and recording the deed with the county recorder. Then after you complete the refinance, you can put the property back into trust by signing another deed and recording that deed. This of course does cost some money to have the deeds prepared and record the deeds.

    8. What if we want to sell the house while it is in a revocable living trust?

    There is no problem selling your home while it is in trust. The deed is prepared for you to sign as trustees. The title company providing title insurance to the buyer will want to see a copy of the trust (and probably also want to make a copy for their file).

    9. What if we sell the home while it is in a land trust?

    (a) If a bank or other institution is the trustee, then that trustee must be instructed to prepare the deed for you. There will probably be a fee for preparation of the deed.

    (b) If you are the trustee/s, or some other person (relative, friend, etc.) is the trustee, then such trustee/s sign the deed that is prepared.

    10. What if we owe money, are sued, or must go bankrupt?

    Neither a revocable living trust nor a land trust provides protection from your creditors.

    11. What if one of us must enter a nursing home and our home is in a revocable living trust or a land trust?

    Generally speaking, neither a revocable living trust nor a land trust provides protection from nursing home expenses. However, if one spouse must go into a nursing home, it is advisable that the following be done (a) the nursing home resident transfer his/her interest in the home to the healthier spouse {called the “community spouse”, meaning the spouse residing in the home}, (b) then the community spouse should consider owning the home in a revocable trust or a land trust so that there is no probate when the community spouse dies. In some states (such as New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), there have been court cases when a will was used to pass assets to the children (rather than the nursing home resident spouse). In those cases, the community spouse died before the nursing home resident spouse, and the community spouse’s will gave little or nothing to the nursing home resident spouse (the children were named as the beneficiaries of the will). Those states then informed the nursing home resident spouse (or his/her guardian or agent under power of attorney) that the state’s law gave the surviving spouse the right to claim a percentage of the assets passing through the deceased spouse’s will (and those states basically forced the nursing home resident to take such percentage of assets and use them for nursing home expenses, which meant that the children got less assets). Illinois has not yet taken such approach, but the possibility exists and thus a revocable living trust or a land trust would be advisable when compared to just using a will (because a surviving spouse has no legal rights under Illinois law to take a percentage of what passes through a revocable living trust or a land trust).

    12. If the property is not in trust, and we die, what happens? Is there going to be probate?

    (a) If you own the property as either joint tenants or tenants by the entirety, and one of you dies, then the property automatically becomes owned 100% by the surviving spouse.

    (b) If you both die, then there may be probate if

    (i) the last of you to die is a resident of Illinois and you have more than $50,000 of personal assets {not counting the value of the real estate} in your individual name that does not pass by beneficiary form.

    (ii) any of the beneficiaries of your will (not contingent beneficiaries who actually don’t receive anything) or your heirs are either minors or incompetent. {“Heirs” means the persons who would inherit under state law if you did not have a valid will.}

    13. What are the similarities and differences between joint tenants, tenants by the entirety, and tenants in common?

    (a) Joint Tenants: The property will pass to the surviving joint tenant(s) automatically when one joint tenant dies. Any joint tenant can individually sign a deed to transfer/sell/gift his/her part of the property (and the signature of other joint tenants is not required). More than two people can own property as joint tenants.

    (b) Tenants by the Entirety: In Illinois, only a husband and wife can own property as tenants by the entirety. And the only property that can be owned that way is the principal residence (not a vacant lot, not a rental property, not commercial property). When one spouse dies, the property passes to the surviving spouse automatically. The signatures of both spouses are required to transfer/sell/gift any part of the property (one spouse alone cannot transfer/sell/gift any part of the property). Of course, if one spouse is incompetent, then the other spouse can transfer/sell/gift the home with a valid power of attorney signed by the incompetent spouse or by a valid court order. Tenants by the entirety provides some protection in case one of the spouses is sued but not the other. {See the next question below for further information.}

    (c) Tenants in Common: More than one person can own property as tenants in common. When one owner dies, his/her interest doesn’t automatically pass to the other owners. Instead, the deceased owner’s interest would pass according to his/her will (or by state law if the deceased person did not have a valid will). Any of the owners can individually sign a deed to transfer/sell/gift his/her part of the property (and the signature of other owners is not required).

    14. What if we (husband & wife) own the home as tenants by the entirety, and one or both of us is sued?

    (a) If one of you is sued and a court enters a judgment against that spouse, then the home should be protected for the “innocent spouse” (the one not sued). However, if the innocent spouse dies, then the home will be at risk if any money is still owed to the plaintiff (the one who sued the surviving spouse).

    (b) If one of you is sued by the IRS, then the situation is different. In a 2002 Supreme Court case (United States v. Craft), the court ruled that the IRS can place a lien on a home even though the taxpayer and his wife owned the home as tenants by the entirety. {In that case, the husband owed the IRS about $500,000 in income taxes. The home was owned by husband and wife as tenants by the entirety. The husband then transferred his interest in the home to his wife for one dollar so that she owned the home 100%. When the wife later sold the home, the IRS claimed that it was due one-half of the money, and the Supreme Court agreed with the IRS in a 9 to 0 vote.}

    (c) If both of you are sued and a court enters a judgment against both of you, then there is no protection by owning the home as tenants by the entirety.

  9. WA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL says Government officials can violate the law and citizens can do nothing about it……..


    How many REITs are there?

    As of Jan. 1, 2012, there were 166 REITs registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States that trade on one of the major stock exchanges — the majority on the New York Stock Exchange. These REITs have a combined equity market capitalization of $579 billion.

    Additionally, there are REITs that are registered with the SEC but are not publicly traded, and REITs that are not registered with the SEC or traded on a stock exchange. Internal Revenue Service shows that there are more than 1,600 U.S. REITs that have filed tax returns.

  11. JG


  12. johngault- good points in your 5:13 post regarding substitute trustees. i am in a judicial state and am horrified with the lack of any protection at all for homeowners in nonjudicial states. you are right in that the trustee was never intended to do or be anything. except a straw man for the sub trustee. get something going with that.

  13. I don’t know if any attorneys read this blog or not. Hope so. This issue with the dot trustees has got to be visited and revisited. It may take you going back to the legislative intent of the dot as a coll instrument. In a nutshell, non-j requires strict compliance. It was a legislative privilege granted to lenders to curb the time and cost of judicial f/c – one of, if not thee only, legislated right of one party to a contract to act and take remedy regarding a breach or dispute without judicial oversight. Can you possibly think the legislators contemplated the trustee, the referee, to be the agent of or under the exclusive control of the ben? An agent (like an attorney, as in the bankster’s) owes his fiduciary to his principal only. If the legislators intended that relationship to exist between the ben and the trustee, they might have just as well skipped, left out, the dot trustee, which of course negates the whole concept of having a third-party-referee. That whole gang we refer to as “banksters” has been busy, steadfastly upsetting this schematic to the significant detriment of the trustor. The trustOR, for pete’s sake. Imo, which I believe is consistant with the leg intent, the dot trustee must be 1) a party legally competent for the position / job, 2) arm’s length (or further!) from either of the other two parties, 3) has got to have the evidence of the ben’s / lender’s status, and 4) proper evidence of the breach. If not, all we’ve got is a deal which allows one party to a contract to unilaterally call a breach and resolve the matter in its favor, which is no where near, not even in the hood, of the legislative intent of this privilege. Try asking a “trustee” about his credentials and what he’s received which demonstrates anything!

  14. Map of title theory and lien theory states…

  15. New Century borrowed 100 Million from Credit Suisse to fund loans and did not, not at that junction….in DE transcript.

  16. My thoughts are: New century borrowed money on my behalf, supposedly. It appears they may have taken money from WF and Credit Suisse, whom did not fund loans, due to New Century using the money for company expenses.

    They took money under false pretenses and did not use it for its intended purpose. Where would that leave someone? And if they borrowed on my behalf and did not fund, how can they legally have any claim for a loss? The people they took the lines of credit from have the loss. Just saying…this is a fact, at least in my case…and thousands of others, who dealt with New Century.

  17. poppy:
    “You know jg, how can you have a legal contract with zero disclosure over who was borrowing on your behalf, converting the legal document into investments other than REMICS…?”

    I don’t know, really, what you mean by who was borrowing on your behalf. I can borrower 10k, it’s then mine, and I can loan it to you. People and businesses do it all day long and generally play the spread between the interests they’re charged and what they charge their borrower. I don’t have an answer, other than to note that X note owner may do anything he wants with a note (like sell it, hypothecate it, pledge it) after its creation, generally, but if he somehow destroys it, that’s different. Converting the docs – here primarily the note – into “investments” after the creation of the debt obligation, I don’t know. It does appear that the note has been forfeited by something done with it which destroys its validity as the basis of an obligation by its maker, but that’s beyond me. I say even this because the payments on the MBS’s don’t mirror those on the notes and to me, that looks like the notes are made / turned into Collateralized Debt Obligations (with someone other than the borrower owing the obligation, the one in CDO), which, to me, in turn, means there’s no true beneficiary (of the trust assets) because the investors are bens of the MBS payments, so who’s the ben of the note makers’ payments? A trust has to have a ben of its trust assets, not other assets, UNless derivatives count; the only relationship I see between the notes and the MBS’s is that the MBS’s are allegedly derivative of the note makers’ payments. And that’s before any consideration of CDS’s and third party insurance and guarantees! But maybe that’s why they’re called derivatives and are legal? Are the notes exchanged between the trust and the investors for another separate and distinct obligation – the MBS? Beyond my ken, and yes, that bums me out, but it would take a lot to figure out and there must be those out there who can articulately explain this – IF there’s an explanation to be made. Sometimes I think it’s all a big pretend, but I don’t have the wherewithall to take this rather (read majorly) dispositive issue on.

  18. kc – you’re on a roll! Maybe you will find material which addresses
    “title theory” and “lien-theory” states while you’re at it….?

    “A deed of trust is a three party instrument by definition – the trustor,
    beneficiary, (by any other names), and the trustee. There are two forms of title of a fee simple estate: legal and equitable. It is the trustee who may hold 1) legal (or ‘bare naked’), title or 2) equitable title to the
    property which is the subject of the deed of trust. Some states are ‘title
    theory’ states and hold that the trustee holds legal title to the property for the benefit of the beneficiary with the borrower retaining equitable title. Other states, known as ‘lien theory’ states, hold that the borrower retains legal title with the trustee holding an interest for the benefit of the beneficiary.” This is accurate on info and belief.

  19. You know jg, how can you have a legal contract with zero disclosure over who was borrowing on your behalf, converting the legal document into investments other than REMICS, where they were never securitized and notes destroyed, which is they very essence of a lien and a CD claiming to be able to assign their “restricted” authority as a beneficiary or a nominee and most were not funded, but closed, really? I have given a great deal of thought to filing against the closing attorney here…they never had any money other than yours and the seller’s funds.


  20. Yes, you are correct. We found a boatload of them 2011, one right after the other, with BOA, WF, Citi, HSBC, etc…behind the purchases….all I’m saying.

  21. What is a REIT? –‎

    A REIT, or Real Estate Investment Trust, is a type of real estate company modeled after mutual funds. REITs were created by Congress in 1960 to give all …

  22. You know what, NG? I think the title companies allowing themselves to be named as the orig trustees in the dots is actionable. I believe they participated in an unconscionable scheme designed to, briefly, fool the borrower. Imo the determining factor is intent, which in turn will be found most likely in the LACK of a contractual agreement between the lender (the guy named as the orig payee on the note, to be clear) and the title co. regarding the trustee’s duties and obligations, etc. These parties, including the title cos., never (never, never, never) intended the party named as the orig trustee to retain that position, and certainly not when foreclosure is on the horizon. It was false inducement because of intent to replace the trustee with a party the lender controls, a party who would abandon any fair dealing if not duo fiduciary to the trustor, the borrower. The borrower is the guy who entrusted an interest in his home to that third party in the dot. He’s the one who created the trust; a lender may get by without the trustee, but the borrower can’t, not when non-j foreclosure is possible (no judge or jury). The evidence is that no f/c’s are or have been done by the orig trustee. Instead, f/c are done by sub’d trustees, generally non-arm’s-length entities or persons under the exclusive control if not ownership of one of the other parties, the (alleged) ben. How convenient: write yourself a “MERS” assignment and then make yourself, essentially, the dot trustee. To me, this is no small issue. It’s a biggie, both the false inducement and the relationship between the sub’d trustee and the alleged ben. If nothing else, the dot trustee is a stinking referee, not
    a quarterback for the ben.

  23. POPPY

    NY LEGISLATOR LIZ KRUGER made it illegal to blacklist a tenant but they do it anyhow.

  24. POPPY

  25. Gotta wonder if that’s legal in most states? ML

    I was talking about these REITS before. We found over 14,000+ holding companies in 2011 in NV…

  26. poppy
    i rent from a Real estate investment trust REIT since there is very little rental apartments available and you have no idea of how many scams they run including third party utility bills SOMETIMES GOING OVER $300 AND YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR WATER, TRASH, SEWER ETC

    REITs for rental apartments or rental homes should be illegal. mY OPINION

  27. The Fed is very much at the heart of this Fraud as they are receiving profit from the insurance of the 100% guaranty of the Ginnie Mae securities.

    These stupid agencies in FHA & VA help facilitate the crime by purchasing these properties at the foreclosure, when in fact they are only on the hook for the back end loss of in most cases 10% of the balance is what being paid out. However if modification where done there would have not been any loss, but also because the title is screwed up and the debt were separated from the Notes, there is no actual debt to collect and the Notes are void.

    It was easier to place blame of the homeowners which Obama help do so well, as its given time to allow the crime to be continued. It been all about the bank not failing and the choices were 10 million foreclosures or the banking system possible collapsing, and the choice was to foreclose.

  28. Wall Street’s New Housing Bonanza

    January 29, 2014

    Wall Street’s latest trillion-dollar idea involves slicing and dicing debt tied to single-family homes and selling the bonds to investors around the world.

    That might sound a lot like the activities that at one point set off a global financial crisis. But there is a twist this time. Investment bankers and lawyers are now lining up to finance investors, from big private equity firms to plumbers and dentists moonlighting as landlords, who are buying up foreclosed houses and renting them out.

    The latest company to test this emerging frontier in securitization is American Homes 4 Rent. The company talked to prospective investors at a conference in Las Vegas last week about selling securities tied to $500 million of debt, according to people briefed on the matter.

    American Homes 4 Rent, which went public in August, has tapped JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo as its bankers for a debt deal that is expected to be sold by the end of the first quarter, these people said.


    While this securitization market is still in its infancy, a recent Wall Street estimate put potential financing opportunities for the single-family rental industry as high as $1.5 trillion. Already some members of Congress and economists are worried about another credit bubble.

    “The investment and lending opportunities are immense and perhaps just beginning,” Jade Rahmani, a real estate analyst with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, wrote in a recent report.

    In just the last two years, large investors have bought as many as 200,000 single-family houses and are now renting them out, according to the K.B.W. report.

    The private equity giant Blackstone Group sold the first single-family rental securitization of its kind last fall, a $479 million bond, attracting six times as many investors as the private equity firm could accept, a person involved in the deal said.

    Executives of American Homes 4 Rent celebrated the company’s public offering last August.


    Investors like mutual funds and insurance companies bought slices of the bond, which are backed by the rental homes owned by Blackstone’s company, Invitation Homes.

    The rental business is still dominated by landlords who own and manage only a handful of properties. Wall Street has found a way to finance them, too. Cerberus Capital Management and Blackstone have started businesses that lend to small-time and medium-size investors.

    And there are discussions about bundling many of these small loans and securitizing them also.

    “That’s the part of the business that will take off,” said Stephen D. Blevit, a lawyer at Sidley Austin. “Providing cheap financing to mom-and-pop investors who save their pennies, buy a few properties and do all the maintenance themselves.”

    What the new securitization boom will mean for homeowners and renters is less clear.

    Wall Street may be clamoring to lend to investors in single-family homes, but it is still difficult for millions of Americans to qualify for a mortgage. The easy financing could give investors the upper hand in bidding for homes on the market.

    Representative Mark Takano, Democrat of California, whose district includes the Inland Empire just east of Los Angeles, which was hit by a tidal wave of foreclosures, has asked the House Financial Services Committee to hold hearings on the impact that single-family rental bonds could have on the housing market.

    “Proper oversight of new financial innovation is key to ensuring we don’t go down the same road of the unchecked mortgage-backed security and create an unsustainable bubble that will wreak havoc when it bursts,” Mr. Takano said in a letter to the committee last week.

    Securitization, however, could provide a pick-me-up to Wall Street’s mortgage machine, a once-mighty profit engine that has never fully recovered from the financial crisis. Bankers estimate that single family-rental bond deals could total as much as $7 billion this year and eventually grow to about $20 billion a year.

    For landlords like American Homes 4 Rent, securitizing debt would provide them with more leverage to buy more homes. It would also increase their profits by lowering their borrowing costs.

    With securitization, landlords could in theory put as little as 25 percent of equity into their properties, while borrowing the rest. Credit lines from banks typically require 40 percent equity.

    Last month, economists at the Federal Reserve warned that if large landlords took on too much debt, they might feel pressure to hold fire sales of their properties, flooding the housing market with supply.

    “Financial stability concerns may become more significant should debt financing become more prevalent or if the share of homes owned by investors in certain markets rises significantly further,” the Fed economists wrote.

    They added that it was important to monitor the emergence of single-family rental securitization for signs that it could destabilize “financial markets.”

    For now, though, companies like American Homes 4 Rent are earning their early investors big profits. Many tenants used to own the houses they are now renting from the company, said a person with knowledge of the matter.

    A spokesman for the company, which owns 21,000 homes, did not return calls requesting comment.

    The company, whose executives are based in Agoura Hills, Calif., started out with little leverage when it began buying homes as a private venture founded by B. Wayne Hughes with money from the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation in the summer of 2012, said the corporation’s executive director, Michael J. Burns.

    The Alaska fund draws money from royalties paid by big oil companies and doles out annual dividend checks to every state resident. Last year, those checks totaled $900 each.

    Mr. Burns said his investment staff had heard Mr. Hughes was buying foreclosed and other inexpensive houses as part of a private venture. Mr. Hughes, who founded the company Public Storage and is listed on the Forbes 400 richest Americans, agreed to meet the Alaska investment team at his office in Malibu, Calif.

    “Wayne said he thought this was the biggest real estate opportunity of his lifetime,” Mr. Burns recalled.

    With an initial $250 million investment from Alaska in the summer of 2012, Mr. Hughes’s fund went on a buying spree in Arizona, California and Nevada. American Homes 4 Rent now rents out houses in 22 states.

    The company is a real estate investment trust, a structure that has tax advantages over other companies but tends to borrow heavily. Mr. Burns says leverage is “a fact of life” for a company like this. Alaska’s equity investment of $625 million in the company has gained about 17 percent in value.

    “We have been very pleased with how this turned out,” he said.

    Still, Mr. Burns said that it had been “heart wrenching” at times acquiring homes that families have had to turn over to the bank.

    “Some other family is going to move in and make it their home,” he said.

  29. You guys and gals dont get it. Once the banksters broke the chain of title (allegedly hahahhahahahaha) They sold the loans (allegedly) multiple times. That is also why it is taking so long and will take many more years to straighten this out.

    I dont have to say much more. That is why “Produce the Note” is a bad word.


    I am allowed to voice my opinion and observation,

  30. If that’s the case, wouldn’t that be what Bernake is buying each month? We are buying our own mortgages via the Fed?

  31. I remember calling MERS back in Aug 2010 and talking to Bill Hultman who told me that the FDIC was the “investor” which did not make any sense to me. However there is something were FDIC was involve with the handling of WaMu loan even before the bank being seized on Sept 25, 2008.

    Neil is on to something here as I have accused FDIC Shelia Bair with knowing more about all this than she let on. Bair sabotage the sale of WaMu and JPMorgan Chase before it being seized and then after the fact she sold $308 billion in WaMu asset for $1.9 billion but it did not include Fannie, Freddie or Ginnie pooled loans as these loans were placed into these pools with blank endorsed Notes.

    Late night looking through just one county title records most all the foreclosed properties were listed as Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation as the owner. It show that properties were foreclose by a BOA or another lender and then title transferred to FHLMC.

    They got a huge problem ahead because it is clearing up to what we been saying and that is show us the Notes. Its showing FHLMC paying the bank the amount of the foreclosure sale, but why would another party in the FHLMC pay for a foreclosed property. It make it like FHLMC is just an investor of purchasing properties and not purchasing mortgage loans!

    Now if only the attorneys jump on this issue these entities are done.

  32. Go kc, the words are very, very important.

    The meanings don’t change because someone, anyone needs them too.

    You and I may disagree on this, but the thieves are using “servicer” interchangeably. The vast majority of note collections are from debt collectors, hiding under the guise of servicers of the trust…IMHO
    That “entitlement” disappeared upon conversion of the notes to bonds or other investment opportunities, to sell the notes multiple times to anyone with a pulse on-through Wall St.! IMHO

  33. Legal vs. Equitable Title

    -Legal title: Ownership of a freehold
    - Equitable title: Right to obtain legal
    - Buyer obtains equitable title when a
    contract for sale of real estate is fully signed


    By: Jared Dalen

    Ok people, how many of you out there in the Matrix own a car? What if I told you you don’t actually own your car??? You may say, “but I have legal title!” Lets be honest, have you ever bothered looking up the term “legal title” in a law dictionary? Lets take a look at some definitions from Black’s 6th Edition shall we? Alrighty then…

    LEGAL TITLE ~ One cognizable or enforceable in a court of law, or one which is complete and perfect and possession, BUT WHICH CARRIES NO BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY, ANOTHER PERSON BEING EQUITABLY ENTITLED THERETO; in either case, THE ANTITHESIS OF “EQUITABLE TITLE”. It may also mean appearance of title as distinguished from complete title; or full and absolute title or apparent right of ownership WITH BENEFICIAL OR EQUITABLE TITLE IN ANOTHER.

    WOW, lots if big words in there. One of which being “equitable title.” It is also noted that this equitable interest is vested in another person. Interesting… Before we venture into the word “equitable”, lets take a look at “legal owner. ” You are the legal owner are you not?

    LEGAL OWNER ~ The term has come to be used in TECHNICAL CONTRAST to the EQUITABLE OWNER, and not as opposed to an illegal owner. The legal owner has title to property (legal title), although the title may actually carry NO RIGHTS TO THE PROPERTY other than a lein.

    Again, in contrast to equitable owner. Guess we better see who this “equitable owner” is! I would define “equitable title” but under the definition it says to “see equitable owner”…

    EQUITABLE OWNER ~ One who is recognized in equity as owner of the property, BECAUSE REAL AND BENEFICIAL USE AND TITLE BELONG TO HIM, even though bare legal title is invested in another.

    “Legal title is invested in another” (YOU) and “real and beneficial use and title belong to him.” We’ll who is “him” and actually owns the equitable interest in “your” car? We’ll find that out shortly after a couple more definitions like “equitable ownership”…


    EQUITABLE INTEREST ~ The interest of a BENEFICIARY under a trust is considered equitable as contrasted with the interest of the TRUSTEE which is a LEGAL INTEREST BECAUSE THE TRUSTEE HAS LEGAL AS CONTRASTED WITH EQUITABLE TITLE.

    I hope it is starting to become very clear that somewhere between you buying the car and then receiving this “legal title”, you have given up equitable interest in YOUR car. By the above definition it states you are a trustee that has legal title to the property. This may bring more questions like what is a “trust”, “trustee” and this mystical “beneficiary” who has equitable title over YOUR property.

    TRUST ~ A legal entity created by a GRANTOR for the benefit of designated beneficiaries under the laws of the state and the valid trust instrument.



    Well, well, WELL, isn’t this interesting!!!! Lets see, a trust is created by a grantor for the benefit of the beneficiary in which the trustee holds legal title and owes a fiduciary duty to the beneficiary. Feel good about your legal title now? Lets take a look at another term to hammer this home, “fiduciary”…

    FIDUCIARY ~ A person holding the character of a trustee, or a character analogous to that if a trustee… A person having the duty, CREATED BY HIS UNDERTAKING, to act primarily for another’s benefit…

    Lets recap again; YOU:
    1) Have legal title to property you assume is yours.

    2) Have a fiduciary duty for the benefit of the beneficiary that holds equitable title to the property you think you own.

    ^How did this happen!!!! Lets go back and see what exactly happened… You bought a car. At that point you HAD equitable title to that car which is known as the Bill of Sale. Then, without understanding law, and because “everyone is doing it”, you voluntarily registered YOUR car with the state which created a trust agreement. Under this trust agreement that you voluntarily granted (GRANTOR), you gave equitable title to the state and made them the beneficiary and you a trustee in which you agree to their arbitrary rules and fees as a fiduciary… You getting pissed yet? You should, because if you are the “legal owner” of your home and “legal guardian” of your child, somewhere down the line you voluntarily agreed to give up equitable interest in YOUR property. Unfortunately there are two maxims of law that allow this to happen.

    *Ignorance of law is no excuse.*

    *Let him who wishes to be deceived, be deceived.*

    How about a shot of reality from the beneficiary’s mouth:

    Senate Document # 43; SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 62 (Pg 9, Para 2) April 17, 1933: “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State (equitable owner); individual so-called “ownership” (legal owner) is only by virtue of Government (beneficiary), i.e., law, AMOUNTING TO A MERE USER (your the trustee); and use must be in accordance with law (fiduciary duty) and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”

    If you knew the definition of “allodium” (in regard to land), you might realize that a person who owns land in allodium has “land held absolutely in one’s own right, and not of any lord or superior; land not subject to FEUDAL duties or burdens.” Hmmm, feudal duties and burdens like LAND TAXES? Like renewal of registration and other fees for the enjoyment of “your” car???

    Lastly, I want to make it very clear how you are viewed by your beloved government “by the people and for the people” after it changed in the 1860s from a constitutional republic to a federal democracy… Usufruct!

    USURFRUCT ~ The right of using and enjoying and receiving the profits of property THAT BELONGS TO ANOTHER, and the usurfructuary is a person (YOU, the trustee who holds legal title!) who has the usurfruct or right of enjoying anything in which HE HAS NO PROPERTY (EQUITABLE) INTEREST.

    Hate to burst you bubble, but as long as you willingly consent to be governed by this reconstructed federal system, you consent to being a vassal — a voluntary slave — for your lord the state in modern feudal times. If one thing remains constant, it is history repeats itself.

    P.S. In case you are unaware of the significance of the term “vassal”. This is taken from Wiki:

    A vassal or feudatory is a person who has entered into a mutual obligation to a lord or monarch in the context [a] feudal system… The obligations often included military support and mutual protection, in exchange for certain privileges, usually including the grant of land held as a fiefdom. The term can be applied to similar arrangements in other feudal societies.

    Better start questioning the world around you, because this is only the tip of the iceberg…

  35. Although the difference between legal title and equitable title appears to be broad and straightforward, it’s crucial to understand it in precise terms. If you’re purchasing or insuring a home, you may have hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity and a significant portion of your nest egg riding on the legal status of your title. Before you make any irreversible decisions about real property to which you hold title, take a moment to review the finer points of distinction on this matter.

    What Is Legal Title?

    Legal title is a perfected ownership interest that’s enforceable by law. In other words, property owners with legal title to a given parcel can take legal action against parties that attempt to infringe upon their ownership rights. Legal title rights are most often separated from equitable title rights during a contract-for-deed property sale. During this process, the seller transfers equitable title rights to a buyer in exchange for an agreement to make on-time payments and perform certain other obligations. As the legal titleholder, the seller may petition a court to enforce his legal rights to the property in the event of a breach of the contract-for-deed agreement.

    What Is Equitable Title?

    Equitable title effectively confers a financial or “equitable” interest in a specific property. In other words, equitable titleholders derive indirect benefit from the property’s appreciation in value. Although an equitable titleholder who lacks legal title can’t reap a profit by transferring the property to another party, he or she can do so upon receiving proper legal title. If the value of the property in question rose during the intervening period, the equitable titleholder would keep the difference between the initial purchase price and final sale price.

    Areas of Overlap and Non-Applicability

    It’s important to note that the distinction between equitable and legal title doesn’t apply in property transactions that use traditional mortgages. In the vast majority of cases, bank-originated mortgages confer legal and equitable title to the property in question. The vehicle by which this occurs is known as a “deed of trust.”

    Of course, the financing entity retains a financial and legal interest in financed properties until the buyer satisfies the mortgage. As such, homeowners can’t dishonor the terms of their mortgage contracts with impunity. Such behavior typically results in foreclosure. During the foreclosure process, an adjudicating authority presides over the rescinding of the deed of trust and the subsequent transfer of legal and equitable title back to the financing entity.

    Rights of Legal and Equitable Titleholders

    It’s useful to think of equitable and legal title as two complementary halves of a single whole. Legal titleholders can’t benefit from changes in a given property’s value but enjoy unlimited recourse in the event that third parties attempt to infringe upon or appropriate their parcels. By contrast, equitable titleholders must abide by the agreed-upon terms of their contracts with legal titleholders but can reap substantial profits after obtaining legal titles that confer rights of sale, subdivision and improvement.

    In practice, legal titleholders have an important advantage over equitable titleholders. As masters of an enforceable contract, they can demand remuneration or other compensation from the parties to whom they sell or lease their properties. Equitable titleholders who wish to obtain legal title rights must follow these agreements to the letter.

    Final Thoughts: A World of Difference

    Although many home-buyers use a contract-for-deed system to make the purchase process more affordable, some are unaware that this arrangement doesn’t confer absolute ownership rights. Under the wrong circumstances, this imperfect knowledge can lead to interpersonal misunderstandings and steep financial losses. If you’re a recently minted homeowner or find yourself in the market for a new property, a full understanding of the difference between legal title and equitable title can go a long way towards reducing and eliminating such problems.

  36. EQUITABLE TITLE – This type of title refers to the actual enjoyment and use of a property without absolute ownership. It is the interest in the property held by a buyer (vendee) under a purchase contract, contract-for-deed, or an installment-purchase agreement. The buyer (vendee) has the right to demand that legal title be transferred upon payment of the full purchase price after the final installment payment has been made. This interest is transferable by deed, assignment, subcontract, or mortgage. Equitable title is conveyed to the buyer (vendee) as soon as the seller (vendor) actually countersigns and agrees to the offer to purchase. In other words, Jack agrees to purchase a home from David under a contract-for-deed’ arrangement. In layman’s terms, a contract-for-deed means “you (buyer) fulfill your part of the contract (pay the balance in full) and ONLY THEN do I (seller) have the obligation to transfer the deed to you.” Jack takes ‘equitable title’ in the property as soon as David agrees to the contract and signs it. However, the legaltitle (which defines absolute ownership) is not formally transferred from David (seller/vendor) to Jack (buyer/vendee) until he has made his last installment payment under the contract and paid the agreed-upon amount in full, whether he pays the balance in one year or over a period of thirty years. Also, with equitable title, the vendee (purchaser) benefits from any increase in value between the date of the agreement and the final delivery of the deed once the balance is paid in full. If the property increases in value the vendee gets the increased valuation of the property; if the property value declines the vendee in turns suffers that as well.

    Equitable does not give the actual legal title to the property like it would if a buyer were using a mortgage. Equitable Title means giving the buyer an “equitable position” in the property. The legal title is conveyed only after the buyer has satisfied the contract.

    The reason that equitable title and not legal title is conveyed in contract-for-deed purchases as mentioned above is because there is no deed of trust filed, this only occurs AFTER-THE-FACTonce the purchaser (vendee) fulfills the contract agreement, and legal title can only be transferred by a deed.

    LEGAL TITLE – Legal title is the ownership of property that is enforceable in a court of law, or one that is complete and perfect in apparent right of ownership and possession, but that unlike equitable title, carries no ‘beneficial interest’ in the property. In other words, in the example of David and Jack above, David holds the ‘legal’ title to the property and is the ‘legal owner’ while Jack only has ‘equitable title’. However, with his ‘legal’ title, if the property goes up in value, David cannot benefit from this change and retroactively increase his sales price to Jack to make more money. As another example, if valuable minerals were discovered on the property, David could not ‘benefit’ from this change in the property either.


    When utilizing traditional mortgage financing involving a bank or institutional lender, there is promissory note, a mortgage, and a deed of trust signed and filed. This deed of trust is what transfers legal title from the seller to the buyer. The seller of the property transfers legal title to the new buyer at closing because the contract price has been paid in full by the bank or lender – and now it’s up to the borrower to repay the lender in installments. The buyer now has both legal and equitable title. In turn, the buyer collateralizes the bank’s loan with the property being purchased and the legal title still remains with the buyer unless there is a foreclosure. If a foreclosure occurs on the property, the deed (and legal title) is transferred to the lender so that the lender then retains legal title.

  37. tu, you said:

    “I looked in wikipedia I think I did a search word of legal title or something (and I don’t care for the source, but I looked anyway), and it was explaining legal title and equity title. A can own something that was stolen from B and A can sell it to C who later sells it to D.

    D cannot quiet the title because B is the true owner of the thing as long as the paperwork can show that initial ownership.”

    Without looking at your source material, I’d say a short way of saying this is that A etc. had nothing to sell – so nothing conveyed. Even if A somehow managed to hold title to the property in public records, if A did so as a result of theft, B retained the equitable, and true, interest. But let’s say junior forged granny’s name on the deed (to him) of her home and then sells it to Jane, who is basically a good faith purchaser for value without notice of the forgery. What you’ve said, I think, is that Jane can’t quiet title because the home still belongs to granny. And yet courts rule in favor of buyers at bogus trustee sales all day long, esp in CA (it appears). If your material has any cases in the footnotes, sure like to see them (cut and paste?).

  38. Deborah request it through the OCC and then get it through the Freedom of Information.

  39. ChArles Reed
    Ive requested up the yazoo
    Fdic said ask one west. One west said
    Umm …” we are the attorneys representing one west” bla bla bla

  40. Request the Customer Activity Statement and you will see the FDIC payoff amount!

  41. ML
    My case is at a hiatus. Waiting for hearing at 9 th circuit. Im waiting and wAiting. Patiently respectfully waiting.
    Pro se/ but i know my case and i did my homework. Thanks for posting.
    This case is not like mine but i love the decision. Its good. But re modify a contract that was not what you thought it was anyway, something to be said about that. Im more interested in reliance on what a prudent man would do than the samaritan guy in this case. But its good its definitely heArtwarming.

  42. Deb Wynn
    While voidable orders are readily appealable and must be attacked directly, void order may be circumvented by collateral attack or remedied by mandamus, Sachez v. Hester, 911 S.W.2d 173, (Tex.App. -Corpus Christi 1995).
    65. Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994, 158 F.R.D. 278.
    66. “void” judgment, as we all know, grounds no rights, forms no defense to actions taken thereunder, and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral attack (thus here, by). No statute of limitations or repose runs on its holdings, the matters thought to be settled thereby are not res judicata, and years later, when the memories may have grown dim and rights long been regarded as vested, any disgruntled litigant may reopen old wound and once more probe its depths. And it is then as though trial and adjudication had never been. Fritts v. Krugh, Supreme Court of Michigan, 92 N.W.2d 604, 354Mich.97 (10/13/58).
    67. The laws covering judges and other public officials are to be found at 5 U.S.C. 3331, 28 U.S.C. 543 and 5 U.S.C. 1983 and if the judge has not complied with all of those provisions he is not a judge but a trespasser upon the court. If he is proven a trespasser upon the court (upon the law) not one of his judgments, pronouncements or orders are valid. All are null and void.

  43. Love it about time


  45. “Quiet title: This Court concluded that you can’t quiet title based upon the weakness of someone else’s claim. You must allege your right to title and that the parties served have no claim.”

    I concur.
    I looked in wikipedia I think I did a search word of legal title or something (and I don’t care for the source, but I looked anyway), and it was explaining legal title and equity title. A can own something that was stolen from B and A can sell it to C who later sells it to D.

    D cannot quiet the title because B is the true owner of the thing as long as the paperwork can show that initial ownership.

    I’m phrasing it badly, but that keeps me from plagerizing the info and makes others realize I know nothing and if they want to learn something they have to do their own research.

    The remedy was always outside the courts. The right organization is peeling back the layers and I will say this of my own opinion, that unless a judge is a judge 24 hours a day and an attorney is an attorney 24 hours a day, they do fall outside of any immunity they think they have when they get out and mix with the other lives that are in their life. I know they aren’t looking at their family and friends and little trusts and estates to be pilfered and robbed,

    There are many that may not be touchable when they costume up and go into their ‘space’ and control the rules there of, but they still have to come outside “in so many words” and the rest of the world knows what they’ve done and their Creator knows what they’ve done, and the people who set up this financial system that is collapsing on it’s head because they are stealing homes and stopping the flow of funds into/toward these ’empty trusts’ that are trading as if there is something in them.

    I know the phrase ‘take a long walk off a short peer’ or ‘jump off a building’, but something’s going on when people are supposedly suiciding their selves over this. It’s just money, right?

    No statute of limitation on fraud.
    No one can quiet the title on my homestead.
    I went to court and found no remedy. I needed a remedy that anyone who didn’t know what I knew could receive the remedy. And the court walked all over me. I knew my family and friends had no chance, and I didn’t want a ‘private’ remedy for shelter. I wanted something that didn’t lock out people based on education or finances or legal comprehension. So I went somewhere else and said, ‘look over here…. Do you see it? you don’t see nothing?….look harder…so now you see it?….good.

    There was more than one way to get a remedy. Motu Proprio removed their immunity, and someone is getting them outside the court. The stories of judges and lawyers arrested for the most obscene stuff is just mind blowing.

    It seems someone is cleaning house.

    A terrible statement, but from my perspective an opinion it is true. What do you get when a banker jumps from a building taking his own life? A better world.

    All being One, someone on the internet remarked, yes all is One and they love everyone but sometimes you have to look and say, ‘that part of me deserves to die’. I didn’t feel it then, but I know why they said that, now.

    Experiences makes us change and that’s why what I say now may change based on whatever happens from infinite possibilities.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  46. This may explain the the $211,000 on the Wells Fargo customer statement I received in addition to the $191,000 foreclosure sale plus insurance claim of $25,700 on a $202,000. There are are statements that the FDIC controlled the WaMu loans.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: