For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688
====================
Suburb Brief Filed in California — Arguments to be used in any state
see Replybriefasfiled3-19-2015
Lawyers are getting better and better at confronting the specious arguments of the banks. The time is nearing when we realize as a nation that the foreclosure crisis was a sham — a fraudulent scheme to benefit the banks and the executives who run them.
Amongst many compelling arguments in this Brief filed in California is the hypocrisy of the bank arguments about whether the borrower can challenge the right to foreclose and even the validity of the mortgage based upon the PSA. Their idea is that the borrower can’t challenge the validity of the note and mortgage based upon the provisions of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. Their reason is very attractive to Judges at first because their reason is that the borrower could not possibly be able to enforce a document or agreement to which the borrower was not a party.
This brief tears that arguments into pieces better than anything I have done on these pages. The writer cites the fact that the same bank making the argument that the borrower has no rights to challenge based upon the provisions of the PSA is, in the same case, trying to argue that the borrower is bound by the provisions of the PSA. That by all accounts makes the borrower a party who has obligations under the PSA and therefore a party who has rights to challenge those obligations. The banks want to pick up one of the stick without picking up the other. It can’t be done.
Hence the violation of the PSA in the origination or acquisition of a loan must inevitably lead to a burden of proof that those transactions actually took place in the chain relied upon by the banks; it also must also inevitably lead to the conclusion that the borrower must be allowed to challenge the existence of non-existent transactions presumed by fabricated documents that were never actually used — BECAUSE the bank is saying that the “Trust” took ownership of the loan by virtue of the the terms of the PSA. Otherwise US Bank as Trustee for whoever, has no standing in court.
I consider this argument incontrovertible.
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: PSA, third party beneficiary |
Discrimantion lawsuit against the Judges of California might be an option.
I am not an attorney.
NEVER AGAIN
Caveat Rock Cyber Bullying Slander are serious crimes.
NEVER AGAIN
Christine, isn’t sad how delusional Mr. Belanger and some of these other poor souls, who’ve drank the Kool-Aid served up by Garfield.
The consensus of those knowledgeable in these matters believe Garfield has single-handily caused more homeowners to lose their homes than all of the other pretender defenders combined. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/21/mortgage-fraud-examiners-warns/
You can, or I will, do Belanger a favor and give them the 800 # for Allied Moving Vans. That’s the least we can do, when he gets booted.
Christine, please stop it right now, is it just that you dont want the truth to get out, or are you that stupid, with no common sense.
the law of the land is done, and now we the people have been validated by the supreme court, oh wait, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO AND I REPEAT NO OTHER COURT, OR JUDGE, FEDERAL OR STATE, CAN CHANGE WHAT THE SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY SAID.
THAT ALL JUDGES IN THIS COUNTRY HAVE BEEN DEAD WRONG, AND WITH THAT SAID. THE BANKS HAVE TO.
WITH IN 20 DAYS THE BANK,SERVICER,LAWYER FOR THEM, TRUSTEE,TRUSTS.
MUST FILE IN 20 DAYS IF THEY DISAGREE WITH THE LETTER OF RESCISSION. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.
NOW THE HOME OWNER HAS ONE YR TO FILE WITH THE COURTS TO GET THE BANKS/SERVICERS,TRUSTEE TRUST TO DO WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO BY OPERATION OF LAW,
PAY ALL MONEY BACK TO HOMEOWNER..
AND THEY CANT SAY A THING, AS THERE RIGHTS FOR NOT FILLING IN THAT 20 DAY PERIOD. TO ARGUE ANYTHING IS GONE, NO DEFENSES. NADA,CAPUT,GONE,BUY BUY, SORRY.
THE ONLY THING THE JUDGE CAN DO IS INFORCE THE RESCISSION FOR THE HOMEOWNER AT THAT POINT, AS THEY DID NOT DENY THE RESCISSION NOTICE.
AND BY THE WAY, THIS IS STILL GOOD EVEN IF THE LOAN WAS 10 15 YRS AGO, AS THEY NOW CAN NOT IF THEY DONT FILE IN 20 DAYS, SAY THE STATUE OF LIMITATION IS GONE. THEY CANT BRING UP ANY DEFENSE. NOTHING.
SO ROCK,CHRISTINE, BITE ME. AND ONCE I HAVE THAT PILE OF CASH ON MY BED, I WILL POST IT ON HERE TO SHOW YOU. AM RIGHT.
4 MARCH 2015, IN MAIL, THAT GIVES THEM UNTIL 31 MARCH TO FILE ANYTHING. JUST A FEW DAY AWAY. AM REALLY HOPING THEY DO. BECAUSE OF ALL THE DOC’S I HAVE, SHOWING ALL THE FRAUD.
hey rock,
you must be one smart person, so let’s see if you can , wait i have to make sure you will be able to comprehend this question,??
ok. question ! and if anyone else would like to have a say, hum, like
christine, as you have won so many cases.
can any bank, or servicer acting for a bank, or trust, or trustee, foreclose on a non-existent ( ASSET ) OF THE BANK,TRUST,TRUSTEE, .??
SIMPLE QUESTION.
Actually Spitfire, you did what most scammers do when asked to back up their ridiculous comments with case citations – you wet the bed!
BTW, I’ve explained again and again the ONLY proven, documented, methodology for homeowners to prevail, and that’s attacking the mortgage transaction for breaches, errors, tortious conduct, set-offs, etc., etc. http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/prnewswire/press_releases/Georgia/2014/01/07/MN41655?ana=prnews&r=full&full=true
But, misinformers, scammers, and legal illiterates like you are here poisoning the minds of homeowners with frivolous nonsense and wishful thinking.
I do agree with you on one point, you Kool-Aid drinkers whose brains are now mush from all of the misinformation you’ve absorbed aren’t “buying” what works.
@Rock ~ Weidner, Syzmoniac, Charney, Guerra have all had rather large wins in the past two years and even settlements between the robo signing entities (LPS and Nationwide) and themselves and their clients. And for all intents and purposes, I could give a flying *** of what your opinion of me is. I have been posting on this forum for nigh on 5 years now, with the SOLE purpose of giving others hope in the face of losing their HOME’S to forgery, fraud, dirty trading tactics, bogus trusts, bogus trustee’s working for the foreclosure mills and receiving a DIRECT BENEFIT from the foreclosure. You, on the other hand, have one sole purpose for posting here and its to discourage people from even trying to seek restitution for the destruction of their land titles, so that, most likely, your dirty hands can keep receiving the profits from derived thereof.
So take your BS elsewhere. No one here is buying what you are selling.
Spitfire, the mark of a scammer is someone who can’t prove up.
I already asked you to “show case citations of ‘wins’ from these so-called ‘kick azz attorneys in Florida & Texas,” which you failed to do.
Now, I challenge you to show any cases “from Appellate level courts overturning the District court” cases I cited.
Moreover, you’re clearly not a very good paralegal, if one at all. You claim I only cited district court cases, its clear you don’t know the difference between appellate cases and lower ct. decisions because if you did you would know several of the cases cited were appellate cases.
Rock is a Cyber Bully Period.
NEVER AGAIN
@Rock ~ you seem to have a knack for doing the research on all the District court “wins”. Why not turn that research directive into something beneficial for the readers of this blog, by looking up the case law from Appellate level courts overturning the District courts rulings you seem so keen to spout??
Stitfire you are so spot on!
Spitfire, please provide case citations of “wins” from these so-called “kick azz attorneys in Florida & Texas.”
@Rock, your rather lengthy reply would give any reader of it the impression that you are an attorney for the big banks. My question is this, “Why only quote case law in District Courts? Why not share some of the more recent wins at Appellate levels, which by fact of law, trump any district case law that we ALL know has been re-writing real estate law in every state to comply with the banks illegal activities?? Why not talk about all the kick azz attorneys in Florida & Texas and elsewhere that are not only getting wins in Appellate courts, but subsequent settlements for the defrauded homeowners? Instead, you bring your doom and gloom forecasts with all these recent “district court rulings” and if you will note, they are ALL in the past 5 years, specifically when the judges have been being overturned on their decisions because their rulings are found to be UnConstitutional, the recent Supreme Court ruling case in point, re” the TILA laws and rescission.
I am not an attorney, but I am a certified Paralegal and the bulk of my training was in Real Estate and Mortgage Fraud. And I do know several attorneys that are little by little, piece by piece and bit by bit, restoring the Rule of Law whereas this issue is concerned.
This blog was created to give those who seek answers a place to share their information and give support to one another. If you simply want to post case law that negates the entire purpose of this site, why not do that on the banksters websites instead?
Bottom line is this, for all those defrauded, please remember that you were NOT a party to ANY transaction outside of the ORIGINAL transaction with the ORIGINAL pretender LENDER. Do not make claims or admissions to the contrary. And if you have found that the original pretender lender never advanced any funds on your behalf, then the “contract” was VOID from the beginning. Don’t go into court and do the defense counsels job for them by making admissions to terms that you could not have possibly been aware of.
Yes they should be able to challenge the PSA (IMHO). Read the OCC manual. It state the Borrower is party to the PSA just like US Bank has it on their brouchures! Read it! Judges should Read it
I do agree with Alina, attacking the contract is the ONLY methodology that works. However, he may be in the right church, he’s just in the wrong pew.
That such a simple argument “being bound by an agreement makes you a party” has to be argued in such a convoluted and extensive manner kills the credibility of the legal system. As my understanding and mastery of the law has increased, my respect for this antiquated and purposefully obtuse system erodes..
Reblogged this on Alina's Blog and commented:
The reply brief is beautifully written. It’s Contracts 101. This is the basis for any good foreclosure defense.
Based on the law in almost every state and federal court, the brief is factually and legally incorrect.
In re Correia, 452 B.R. 319, 324-25 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2011) (finding debtors lacked standing to challenge validity of mortgage assignment, based upon alleged noncompliance with pooling and servicing agreement); In re Smoak,— B.R. —, 2011 WL 4502596, *5-6 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2011) (holding debtors under securitized notes lacked standing to raise violations of PSA);In re Almeida, 417 B.R. 140, 149 n. 4 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2009) (noting holder of second mortgage on property was “not a third party beneficiary of the PSA, and, ironically, he would appear to lack standing to object to any breaches of the terms of the PSA. . . . [Instead] the investors who bought securities based upon the pooled mortgages would be the parties with standing to object to any defects in those mortgages resulting from any failure to abide by the express provisions of the PSA.”); Livonia Property Holdings, LLC v. 12840-12976 Farmington Road Holdings, LLC, 717 F. Supp. 2d 724, 748 (E.D. Mich. 2010), aff’d, 399 Fed. Appx. 97 (6th Cir.2010) (same); Anderson v. Countrywide Home Loans, 2011 WL 1627945, *4 (D. Minn. 2011) (rejecting argument that assignment to a securitization trust was invalid because the PSA provided that the trust ceased accepting mortgages several years before the contested assignment from MERS because “compliance with the chain of assignment mandated by a PSA was not relevant to the validity of the assignee’s interest.”) (citing Peterson-Price v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 2010 WL 1782188, *10 (D. Minn. 2010)); Greene v. Home Loan Serv., Inc., 2010 WL 3749243, *4 (D. Minn. 2010) (“Plaintiffs are not a party to the [PSA] and therefore have no standing to challenge any purported breach of the rights and obligations of that agreement.”); Long v. One West Bank, 2011 WL 3796887, *4 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (rejecting argument that assignment executed after trust was closed in violation of the PSA rendered transaction invalid, reasoning that non-parties to the PSA lacked standing to challenge the assignment and “it is irrelevant to the validity of the assignment whether or not it complied with the PSA”); Juarez v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 2011 WL 5330465, *4 (D. Mass. 2011) (reasoning that plaintiff “does not have a legally protected interest in the assignment of the mortgage to bring an action arising under the PSA”); Cooper v. Bank of New York Mellon, 2011 WL 3705058, *17 (D. Haw. 2011) (dismissing breach of contract count brought by delinquent mortgagors for breach of PSA, reasoning that mortgagors were not third-party beneficiaries of PSA and thus had no standing to enforce its terms); Abubo v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 2011 WL 6011787, *7-9 (D. Haw. 2011) (rejecting argument that PSA violation could form basis for relief, noting that this “argument has been rejected in recent decisions by many courts”); Bascos v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 2011 WL 3157063, *6 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (“To the extent Plaintiff challenges the securitization of his loan because Freddie Mac failed to comply with the terms of its securitization agreement, Plaintiff has no standing to challenge the validity of the securitization of the loan as he is not an investor of the loan trust.”).; In Re Walker, 466 B.R. 271, 285 nn. 28-29 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2012) (collecting cases and noting that “[A] judicial consensus has developed holding that a borrower lacks standing to (1) challenge the validity of a mortgage securitization or (2) request a judicial determination that a loan assignment is invalid due to noncompliance with a pooling and servicing agreement, when the borrower is neither a party to nor a third party beneficiary of the securitization agreement.”).
Other district courts have also held that borrowers do not have standing to challenge breach of securitization agreements. See Armeni v. America’s Wholesale Lender, 2012 WL 253967 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2012)(same); Junger v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2012 WL 603262 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2012)(same);) Greene v. Home Loan Servs. Inc., 2010 WL 3749243, *4 (D. Minn. Sept. 21, 2010) (“Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring their challenge regarding the securitization of the mortgage” because they were “not a party to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.”). Kain V. Bank Of New York Mellon (D.S.C. 3-18-2013) (the third-party debtor who is not a beneficiary to the pooling and serving agreement lacks standing to challenge holder’s rights to enforce the negotiable instrument due to an alleged invalidity in or noncompliance with the pooling and serving agreement): Metcalf V. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (N.D.Tex. 6-26-2012) (Courts in this circuit have repeatedly held that borrowers do not have standing to challenge the assignments of their mortgages because they are not parties to those assignments…Plaintiffs do have standing, however, to challenge defendants’ authority to foreclose on the ground that foreclosure did not comply with the terms of the deed of trust); Almutarreb v. Bank of New York Trust Co., N.A., 2012 WL 4371410, *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2012) (“holding that “because Plaintiffs were not parties to the PSA, they lack standing to challenge the validity of the securitization process, including whether the loan transfer occurred outside of the temporal bounds prescribed by the PSA.”); Lane v. Vitek Real Estate Industries Group, 713 F.Supp.2d 1092, (E.D.Cal. 2010) (“The argument that parties lose interest in a loan when it is assigned to a trust pool has also been rejected by numerous district courts.”); Sami v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2012 WL 967051, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (rejecting claim “that Wells Fargo failed to transfer or assign the note or Deed of Trust to the Securitized Trust by the ‘closing date,’ and that therefore, ‘under the PSA, any alleged assignment beyond the specified closing date’ is void” because the plaintiff lacked standing); White v. IndyMac Bank, FSB, No. 09-00571, 2012 WL 966638, at *7-8 (D. Haw. Mar.20, 2012) (recognizing a servicer can foreclose on behalf of the beneficial owner of the loan); Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011) (“None of their allegations indicate that the plaintiffs were misinformed about MERS’s role as a beneficiary, or the possibility that their loans would be resold and tracked through the MERS system …. By signing the deeds of trust, the plaintiffs agreed to the terms and were on notice of the contents.”); In re Weisband, 427 B.R. 13, 22 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2010) (“Arizona’s deed of trust statute does not require a beneficiary of a deed of trust to produce the underlying note (or its chain of assignment) in order to conduct a Trustee’s Sale.”); U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Knight, 90 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“to have standing, an owner or holder of a note, indorsed in blank, need only show that he possessed the note at the institution of a foreclosure suit; the mortgage necessarily and equitable follows the note.”); WM Specialty Mortg., LLC v. Salomon, 874 So.2d 680, 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), (“a mortgage is but an incident to the debt, the payment of which it secures, and its ownership follows the assignment of the debt. If the note or other debt secured by a mortgage be transferred without any formal assignment of the mortgage, or even a delivery of it, the mortgage in equity passes as an incident to the debt. . . .” Id.); Wolf v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n (4th Cir. 2013) Wolf lacks standing to attack the validity of the assignment. Furthermore, the assignment does not affect Wolf’s rights or duties at all. Wolf still has the obligation under the note to make payments. In fact, the only thing the assignment affects is to whom Wolf makes the payments. Thus, she has no interest in the assignment from MERS to BAC. Accordingly, she has no standing to challenge it); Rhodes V. JPMorgan Chase Bank (S.D.Fla. 6-28-2012) (a failure by Defendant to record its assignment is “applicable only to and enforceable by competing creditors or subsequent bona fide purchasers of the mortgagee, not by the mortgagor.” Tapia V. U.S. Bank, N.A. 718 F. Supp.2d 689, 697-98 (E.D.Va. 6-22-2010) (‘Plaintiffs argue that Defendants could not demonstrate standing to institute the foreclosure because they could not prove Article III injury. The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ standing argument to the extent that Plaintiffs use the term “standing” to refer to the requirement that a secured party first prove in court its right to initiate a foreclosure before the procedure commences. The fundamental flaw in Plaintiffs’ allegation is that Virginia is a non-judicial foreclosure state…a non-judicial foreclosure, does not require an interested party to prove “standing” in a court of law before initiating the foreclosure process…The Court therefore rejects Plaintiffs’ “standing” argument) (internal citations omitted); Indymac Bank, FSB V. Decastro, NJ: Appellate Div. 2013 (“we now have made clear that lack of standing is not a meritorious defense to a foreclosure complaint. Russo, supra, 429 N.J. Super. at 101 (holding that “standing is not a jurisdictional issue in our State court system and, therefore, a foreclosure judgment obtained by a party that lacked standing is not `void’ within the meaning of Rule 4:50-1(d)”); Kan v. OneWest Bank, FSB, 823 F. Supp. 2d 464, 470 (W.D. Tex. 2011) (dismissing suit for failure to state a claim where one of the arguments was that the mortgage documents were robosigned and therefore somehow invalid); Tuille v. Am. Home Mortg. Servs., Inc., 483 F. App’x 132, 135 (6th Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted) (“any defect in the written assignment of the mortgage would make no difference where both parties to the assignment ratified the assignment by their subsequent conduct in honoring its terms, and that [the plaintiff], as stranger to the assignment, lacked standing to challenge its validity.”); Benham v. Aurora Loan Services, No. C-09-2059 SC, 2009 WL 2880232, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2009) (“Other courts in this district have summarily rejected the argument that companies like MERS lose their power of sale pursuant to the deed of trust when the original promissory note is assigned to a trust pool.”); Van Hauen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2012 WL 4162138 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 4322518 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2012) (“Courts in Texas have repeatedly recognized that Texas law allows either a mortgagee or a mortgage servicer to administer a deed of trust foreclosure without production of the original note.”) ; Soberanis v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 13-CV-1296-H KSC, 2013 WL 4046458, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2013) (“As unrelated third parties to the allegedly failed securitization and any other alleged transfers of the beneficial interest under the subject loan and deed of trust, Plaintiffs lack standing to enforce any agreements related to such transactions.”); Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 216 Cal. App. 4th 497, 511-13, 156 Cal. Rptr. 3d 912 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (“[E]ven if any subsequent transfers of the promissory note were invalid, [the borrower] is not the victim of such invalid transfers because her obligations under the note remained unchanged.”); Neal v. Bank of America, N.A., No. CV 12-08104-PCT-FJM, 2012 WL 3638762, at *4 (D. Ariz. Aug. 24, 2012) (rejecting Plaintiff’s argument that the assignment of the deed of trust and the substitution of trustee are forgeries, were robosigned, and are therefore invalid under state statute because “Plaintiff, who is not a party to either the assignment or the substitution of trustee … does not have standing to challenge the validity of these documents”); Javaheri v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 2:1D-cv-08185-ODW, 2012 WL 3426278, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13 2012) (holding that “[w]ile the allegation of robo-signing may be true, . . [the plaintiff] lacks standing to seek relief under such an allegation, noting that “District Courts in numerous states agree”); Mottale v. Tirey (S.D. Cal., 2014) (“Plaintiffs cite the recent California Court of Appeal case Glaski v. Bank of America National Association, et al., 218 Cal. App. 4th 1079 (Aug. 8, 2013), to support the plausibility of Plaintiffs’ unlawful securitization theory of liability. (Dkt. No. 22 at 3.)….The Court first notes that the weight of authority rejects Glaski as a minority view on the issue of a borrower’s standing to challenge an assignment as a third party to that assignment. See Rivac v. Ndex West LLC, No. C 13-1417 PJH, 2013 WL 6662762 at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2013) (collecting cases); Boza v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, LA CV12-06993 JAK, 2013 WL 5943160 at *10 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2013) (same); In re Sandri, 501 B.R. 369, 374-78 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2013) (same).”); (“This Court finds the reasoning in the above-cited caselaw to be more persuasive than the reasoning in Glaski. See Rivac v. Ndex W. LLC, No. 13-1417-PJH, 2013 WL 6662762, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2013) Covarrubias v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. (S.D. Cal., 2014) (“This court is persuaded by the majority position of courts within this district, which is that Glaski is unpersuasive,…(“[N]o courts have yet followed Glaski and Glaski is in a clear minority on the issue. Until either the California Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, or other appellate courts follow Glaski, this Court will continue to follow the majority rule.”) (citations omitted).”); Scomparin v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. (In re Scomparin) (Bankr. N.D. Cal., 2014) (“As determined in In re Sandri, 501 B.R. 369 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2013), the clear weight of authority is against Glaski and its reasoning is unpersuasive. The Glaski court’s interpretation of New York law is contrary to the more well-reasoned cases that have found that an act in violation of a trust agreement is voidable, not void….Consistent with Sandri and the majority of California court decisions that have addressed this issue, this court finds that Plaintiff has no standing to successfully challenge the validity or effectiveness of the transfer. Id. See also Patel v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 2013 WL 4029277 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2013); Sami v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2012 WL 967051 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2012) (collecting cases). Further, Plaintiff provides no response to Defendants’ position that they are entitled to enforce the debt even if the Loan was not deposited into the PSA. Specifically, if the Loan was not placed into trust, then whomever possesses the blank-endorsed Note memorializing the Loan is entitled to enforce the debt. Cal. Comm. Code § 3301. “); Colletti v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC (E.D. Mich., 2013) (Neither pooling the mortgage into mortgage-back security and selling it to a trust nor splitting the note from the indebtedness creates a cause of action. See Stafford v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 12-10987, 2012 WL 1564701, at *4 (E.D.Mich. May 2, 2012) (Cohn, J.) (quoting and collecting cases for the proposition that “courts have uniformly rejected the argument that securitization of a mortgage loan provides the mortgagor with a cause of action.” “To the extent that Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint would rely on claims regarding the securitization of the loan . . . into a mortgage-backed security, there is no merit to the contention that securitization renders the lender’s loan in the property invalid.”) (and citing cases for the proposition that splitting the indebtedness from the note does not render either invalid.) (citations omitted). The Court dismisses this claim.): M&T Bank v. Strawn, 2013 Ohio 5845 (Ohio App., 2013) (“the holder of a promissory note secured by a mortgage has an equitable interest in the mortgage and need not demonstrate that it was validly assigned the mortgage in order to establish standing.”): The transfer of a promissory note secured by a mortgage operates as an equitable assignment of the mortgage. See Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Rufo, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2012-A-0011, 2012-Ohio-5930, ¶41; Citimortgage, Inc. v. Loncar, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 11 MA 174, 2013-Ohio-2959, ¶17 (“in a foreclosure action, the holder of the note, regardless of whether it has been assigned the mortgage, has standing not only because it is the party entitled to enforce the instrument, but because it also has an equitable interest in the mortgage”); Citimortgage, Inc. v. Patterson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98360, 2012-Ohio-5894, ¶21 (holder of the note has standing to foreclose). Thus, appellee acquired an equitable interest in the mortgage when it became a holder of the note, “regardless of whether the mortgage [was] actually (or validly) assigned or delivered”. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Najar, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98502, 2013-Ohio-1657, ¶65; In reality, of course, a PSA is executed to benefit the investors who buy securities backed by the mortgage pool-investors who would be harmed by enforcing the PSA to keep mortgages out of the pooling trust. Unsurprisingly, courts invariably deny mortgagors third-party status to enforce PSAs. See, e.g., In re Walker, 466 B.R. 271, 284-85 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.2012); Kelly v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 789 F.Supp.2d 262, 267-68 (D.Mass.2011); Bittinger v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, 744 F.Supp.2d 619, 625-26 (S.D.Tex.2010); Richard A. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 74:50 (4th ed.2012) (“If the objection to the validity of an assignment is not that it is void but voidable only at the option of the assignor, or of some third person, the debtor has no legal defense whether or not action is brought in the assignee’s name, for it cannot be assumed that the assignor is desirous of avoiding the assignment.”); Nobles, 533 S.W.2d at 926-27 (“It is settled that … a deed [executed by a person fraudulently misrepresenting his agency] is valid and represents prima facie evidence of title until there has been a successful suit to set it aside … [which] can only be maintained by the defrauded [principal].”); Rivac v. NDEX W. LLC (N.D. Cal., 2013) (District courts have consistently found that conclusory allegations of robo-signing are insufficient to state a claim, absent some factual support. See Baldoza v. Bank of America, N.A., 2013 WL 978268 at *13 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2013); see also Chan Tang v. Bank of America, N.A., 2012 WL 960373 at *10-11 (C.D. Cal. March 19, 2012); Sohal v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 2011 WL 3842195 at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2011); Chua v. IB Property Holdings, LLC, 2011 WL 3322884 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2011))…Further, where a plaintiff alleges that a document is void due to robo-signing, yet does not contest the validity of the underlying debt, and is not a party to the assignment, the plaintiff does not have standing to contest the alleged fraudulent transfer. See Elliott v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 2013 WL 1820904 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2013); Javaheri v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., 2012 WL 3426278 at *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2012). (“Plaintiffs here do not dispute that they defaulted on the loan payments, and the robo-signing allegations are without effect on the validity of the foreclosure process.); Tran v. Bank of N.Y. (S.D.N.Y., 2014) (“courts considering EPTL § 7-2.4 have held that “even if it is true that the Notes were transferred to the trust in violation of the trust’s terms [after the closing date of the trust], that transaction could be ratified by the beneficiaries of the trust and is therefore merely voidable.”); Brandrup v. Recontrust Co. N.A., 353 Or. 668, 303 P.3d 301 (Or., 2013) (Because a promissory note generally contains no description of real property and does not transfer, encumber, or otherwise affect the title to real property, it cannot be recorded in land title records.); Romani v. Nw. Tr. Servs., Inc. (D. Or., 2013) (Plaintiff argues that the foreclosure sale was invalid because Defendants failed to record every transfer of the Deed of Trust,…As the unrecorded assignments in this case occurred by operation of law when the Note was transferred by endorsement in blank, no recording was necessary. Defendants failure to record such assignments will not undo the completed foreclosure sale.); (Herrera v. Federal National Mortgage Assn. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1507.) (“Because a promissory note is a negotiable instrument, a borrower must anticipate it can and might be transferred to another creditor. As to plaintiff, an assignment merely substituted one creditor for another, without changing her obligations under the note.”); Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 216 Cal.App.4th 497, 515 (2013) (“An impropriety in the transfer of a promissory note would therefore affect only the parties to the transaction, not the borrower. The borrower thus lacks standing to enforce any agreements relating to such transactions.”).