U.S. Bank Screws the Investors —- AGAIN Reversed NY 1st App. Division

The banks got away with it because of the complexity of the documents and the general failure of lawyers and others to read the documentation. But they also got away with it because nobody was raising a challenge — like this one where US Bank simply engaged in self-dealing, possibly fraud and certainly breach of contract and breach of fair dealing. Now, like a great sleeping giant, the investors are awakening.

This time they are only clawing back $1 million. Stay tuned for more!

Get a consult and Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.

see NMC Residual Ownership L.L.C. v U.S. Bank N.A. (2017 NY Slip Op 05923)- 1st dept valid cause of action against trustee self dealing REMIC

Sorry folks. If you are looking for simple answers you won’t find it in or around any of the actions or documents involved with claims of securitization, whether false or not. But you WILL find corroboration of my opinion that the transactions that everyone takes for granted as having happened, never happened.

The challenge is set forth by this NY appellate court — in plain language the court is saying “you say you bought these assets but you provide nothing other than your own statement that you bought them.”

The other thing accepted by this appellate court is the idea that the Trustee is actually a party to the self-dealing and other tricks that were placed on borrowers, investors and everyone in between — all reflected in their fraudulent filings with regulatory authorities.

Here US Bank claimed to be Trustee of a REMIC Trusts. As usual there were two general classes of “holders” of certificates — those that receive money while the money is supposedly flowing through the trust from income generated by trust assets (mortgage loans, supposedly) and then those who only get money when the trust is wound up. The latter are called residual holders.

There is a formula for winding up the affairs of the trust in which there could be residual assets and that is exactly what happened in this case. But US Bank first got a buyer at market value, then bought the trust assets at a below market price, and then kept the profit when the Trustee (US Bank) sold those assets to a third party — completely eliminating even the possibility of the residual holders ever receviing any benefit at all.

This case has a 99% probability of settlement — and the settlement money probably will be funded by, you guessed it, someone else.



3 Responses

  1. The bank is protected again. Its the little people that loses.

  2. But US Bank speaks highly of themselves in the advertisements. Say it ain’t so-

  3. Was the RMAC Trust, Series 2016-CTT involved by chance?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: