Jurisdiction and REMIC Trusts

The upshot is that REMIC Trusts are fictitious names for the underwriters of bogus mortgage bonds issued in the name of a nonexistent REMIC Trust. It is the product of a disguised boiler room operation. Neither personal nor subject matter jurisdiction can possible apply. Thus claims brought in the name of a putative REMIC Trust are void, ab initio.
Get a LendingLies Consult and a LendingLies Chain of Title Analysis! 202-838-6345 or info@lendinglies.com.
https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave a message or make payments.
OR fill out our registration form FREE and we will contact you!
https://fs20.formsite.com/ngarfield/form271773666/index.html?1502204714426
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

This is dense in its complexity. Jurisdiction consists of (1) personal jurisdiction (2) subject matter jurisdiction and (3) both personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Confusion first arises by use of the word “jurisdiction” without specifying what they are talking about.

Personal jurisdiction can be and usually is waived — as long as the party involved actually exists (see below). You can’t waive personal jurisdiction if you don’t legally exist — and a court can’t waive or ignore it because that would be re-writing the statute on jurisdiction.

Subject matter jurisdiction exists only by statute. each court is given a scope of jurisdiction (like small claims, general civil litigation, complex civil litigation, etc).

If a foreign entity seeks judicial remedy in the state of Minnesota it must therefore exist, and the Defendant must be either a citizen of that state or have substantial contacts for the long-arm statute to apply. The subject matter would be a contract that took place within the state of Minnesota or which holds that the laws of the state of Minnesota apply.

The locus of trust assets are irrelevant UNLESS the assets are the subject matter of litigation. The Trust does not contain real estate. It contains (taking their assertions as true for the moment) paper or written instruments — and by extension the trust is presumed to own the debts, which it doesn’t and never did.

If the foreign entity does not exist then it can bring no action in any court. Being non-existent does not necessarily mean that it was a made-up name of a fictitious entity (frequently the case where REMIC Trusts are invented and named under New York common law). It could be the name of an entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. But in Minnesota the entity is stripped of its right to claim existence unless (1) it is enforcing a loan or (2) it is an unregistered and not permitted to do business, to make or defend any claim.

In the case of the trusts, this becomes more convoluted. A Trust exists ONLY if it has ALL the elements of a Trust. Trustor, Trust instrument, Beneficiaries and the res or property (or money) entrusted to a named Trustee in the Trust instrument. If such assets have been entrusted (by the Trustor) to the named Trustee to be administered in accordance with the terms of the Trust instrument, for the benefit of the named beneficiaries, then the Trust legally exists.

But when it goes to Minnesota and seeks foreclosure remedies it is a foreign entity, generally unregistered to do business in MN. While there are exceptions in every state for lenders, the statute of MN would need to be scrutinized to see if the REMIC Trust, which had no business performed by the Trust in MN, can still bring a claim for relief (foreclosure sale and/or judgment) under MN law.

And if the Trust does not have all the elements it simply does not exist in law or in fact. Thus no action should be brought in the name of a fictitiously named nonexistent entity. Work on the principal using the fictitious name, which is also unregistered anywhere, would reveal that the named “Trust” is merely a fictitious name employed by the underwriter of bogus mortgage bonds to investors.

9 Responses

  1. Here is a thought to ponder…

    If your state, county or city are invested in the REMIC trust which claims to own your mortgage, and they used your tax dollars and fees as principal to purchase that investment, and they are primary beneficiaries of record, and the dividends from that trust are used to pay for things in your community like roads, water, police, fire, pensions, lottery, etc. – then are you not a 3rd party beneficiary as a part of the body politic which has invested in that trust? Would that not give you standing under the conditions set forth in various appellate court’s decision as a 3rd party beneficiary?

  2. Also — neidermeryer — the IRS REMIC attachment is only for NEW quarterly listings. Need to go further to see if the older trust is still reporting to the IRS. Very hard to do. Can’t even get through to the IRS.

  3. Neil – Please explain this as related to AMERICOLD REALTY TRUST, Petitioner v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC., et al.
    No. 14-1382
    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    Ian — I have seen foreclosure attorneys tell the court that it does not matter if trusts are unregistered. But, I think it does matter, and matters especially when the Supreme Court case is applied. IF a trust is not registered, the role of the trustee is not defined, and we do not know if it is a traditional trust or otherwise.

    Need case law when in court. How does Americold apply to Neil’s analysis? How can it be used to challenge personal and/or subject matter jurisdiction, and outside of Minnesota?

    There is case law out there, I just do not see attorneys using it that would result in decent decisions to apply to one’s own case. A rampant problem in courts is that judges consistently state that borrowers have no standing to challenge assignments and PSAs. How can we use Americold to discredit this problem in courts? It is a major problem.

  4. I know the obvious gets redundant but derailing these guys is going to take a little more than submitting documents to the court.

    Just sayin’.

    Make it a Great Day.

    Scott Thompson
    http://www.columbiamortgageplus.com

  5. IAN ,

    True Dat! https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p938.pdf

  6. More fraud and violations of the REMIC trust. They are empty.

  7. All REMICS are listed on the IRS 938(REMIC) section of the IRC site. There are 1000’s of trusts listed for each quarter of each year.
    Mine isn’t listed. Additionally, when the servicer assigned the mortgage to the trust, they gave an address of xxxxx which turns out to be another of the aervicers office addresses. Whereas every trust listed for the bank, NA, is the same, on the other side of the US.
    Moody’s suspended their ratings for every REMIC listed or serviced by the servicer.
    Anyone have any input? Thanks!

  8. That sounds so simple, but in Ohio the Courts have held that the homeowner is not a party to the PSA and therefore failing to convey assets to the Trust is not enforceable by the homeowner. Despite NY Law on Trusts that says transactions in violation of the language of the Trust are void, Ohio Courts find New York Law supporting the proposition that the beneficiaries are allowed to ratify conduct of the trust and therefore transactions are merely voidable amongst the parties to the PSA.
    When the Homeowner attempts to argue that the transactions are void based upon language of the PSA that prohibit the ratification of any action that would destroy the REMIC qualification, the Courts say that the Homeowner cannot prove that the REMIC election was made for the sub-trust that the Homeowner’s loan is in.
    When the Homeowner attempts to discover the contents of the Trust, whether the loan was placed in a Trust and the manner in which the loan was placed in the Trust, the Courts refuse discovery as the Homeowner is not entitled to enforce the language of the Trust and therefore the requested discovery is not relevant.
    Circuitous pretzel logic.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: