Unworthy Trusts

The simple fact is that the REMIC trusts do not exist in the real world. The parties named as trustees — e.g. US Bank, Deutsch, BONY/Mellon — are trust names that are used by permission through what is essentially a royalty agreement. If you are dealing with a trust then you are dealing with a ghost.

Discovery is the way to reveal the absence of any knowledge, activity or reports ever conducted, issued or published by the named Trustee on behalf of the “trust” or the alleged “beneficiaries.” Take deposition of officers of the named Trustee. Your opposition will try to insert a representative of the servicer. Don’t accept that.

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
For purposes of clarity I am using US Bank as an example. It is the most common.
US Bank has NO information about the trust, the servicer or the account for the borrower. Thus the purpose of any deposition of any officer of US Bank should be solely to establish the absence of events and data that should otherwise be present.
This is why as counsel for the lender, lawyers will not recommend going forward with the refinancing. Your opposition is asking you to accept their word for the “fact” that they represent a creditor who is entitled to payment not just because there is paperwork indicating that, but because they are really owed the money.
Knowing the truth is a basis for establishing gaps and revealing it to the trier of fact but should NOT be a basis of making allegations that you will be required to prove. It’s a thin line and the lawyer needs to be aware of this division, or else you will end up with a burden of proof you cannot sustain and unanswered questions that prevent the closing of refinancing — unless the “source” of refinancing is from another player in the world of securitization.
The fact that securitization players would accept the paperwork is only testament to the willingness of all securitization players to engage in such conduct as to maintain an illusion of legitimacy. Other lenders rely on such conduct at their peril. Other lenders do not receive the reward from multiple resales of the same debt.
So in your inquiries to officers of US Bank you want to establish the following, in order to force the true creditor to come forward (if there is one):
    1. US Bank has no duties normally attributed to a trustee.
    2. The “US Bank” name is basically a royalty arrangement in which the name can be used but there is no further substance to its “role” as trustee.
    3. There is no bank account established or maintained by US Bank for the alleged Trust.
    4. US Bank has never received any money through any means in connection with the subject debt. The borrower’s payments to the servicer have never been received by US Bank on its own behalf, as conduit or as trustee for any trust.
    5. In prior foreclosures involving the same trust, US Bank did not receive the proceeds of the foreclosure sale.
    6. US Bank has no reason to expect that it would receive the proceeds of a foreclosure sale involving the subject debt.
    7. US Bank has no mechanism in place where the payment of money to satisfy the claimed debt would be actually deposited into a bank account for the trust that is controlled by US Bank.
    8. The beneficiaries of the trust do not receive any money from borrower payments, foreclosure sales, or prepayments, refinancing or any other monetary transactions. US Bank probably does not know if this is true or not. US Bank has nothing to do with what, if anything, the “beneficiaries” of the “trust” receive or don’t receive.
    9. US bank has no information regarding the identity of the beneficiaries of the “trust.”
    10. US Bank has no information regarding whether any party is a beneficiary of the “trust”.
    11. US Bank has no information regarding the existence of the trust other than the documents forwarded to it for purposes of the deposition.
    12. US Bank does not keep or maintain accounting records pertaining to the trust.
    13. US Bank does not keep or maintain any records or documents pertaining to the trust.
    14. US Bank does not issue reports to anyone regarding the trust or the subject debt, note or mortgage.
    15. US Bank does not include information relative to the business activity of the “trust” or the subject debt, note or mortgage in any report to any regulatory authority, Federal or State.
    16. Except for fee income, US Bank does not include information relative to the business activity of the “trust” or the subject debt, note or mortgage in any financial report published to the public or to any regulatory authority, Federal or State.
    17. There is no “trust officer” appointed by US Bank to actively manage the affairs of the “trust.”There is no “trust officer” appointed by US Bank to actively manage the affairs of the subject debt.
    18. US Bank neither accepts nor gives any instructions to anyone regarding the affairs of the “trust.”
    19. US Bank neither accepts not gives any instructions to anyone regarding the subject debt, note or mortgage.
    20. US Bank has no power to either accept or give instructions regarding the trust or the subject debt.

Keep in mind that there are experts who believe that the debt no longer exists, and that you are dealing with the ghost of a creditor and the ghost of a debt. This is because the debt was resold multiple times and redistributed to multiple parties (new investors) under the guise of different instruments in which the value of the instrument was ultimately derived not from the debt, in actuality, but from the marketplace where such isntruments are traded. This is an ornate interpretation that has the ring of truth when you examine what the banks did, but this theory will not likely be accepted by any court.

That theory explains why when appellate and trial courts asked the direct question of whether the creditor can be identified the answer was no. The response was that the courts stopped asking.
But the issue at hand is whether, pursuant to state law governing foreclosures, a creditor is before the court possessing a valid claim to collect on a debt. If there is, then that creditor is entitled to payment. If there is not, then the claimed “creditor” is not entitled to either payment or foreclosure. 

11 Responses

  1. Selene Finance has now joined my party… soon, my list of banks, trusts, servicers, and law firms will include every fraudster in the country!

  2. yep. so i’m sitting if a waiting room today while my trial atty goes into a conference with the new judge and with plaintiff’s lawyer. a guy opens the door and says “may i come in?’ i say sure, and he says “hi, i’m judge xxxx. i here waiting for my parties to arrive for my conference.” (this judge floats over several counties, because of retirements.) i intro myself, and it turns out that this is the judge that my trial atty worked with at his firm when he was in private practice a couple of years ago. this is the judge that my trial atty said he would hope we would get to replace the retiring judge from my case. we didn’t get him, but i spend 20 or so minutes educating him on bankster foreclosures, and i really did impress him. so now i’m reviewing his 60+ foreclosure cases and will be contacting defendants who are self represented and are looking to get some cash to move on with their lives in exchange for a quitclaim deed that will allow me to intervene and start kicking some serious bankster ass in front of a friendly and receptive judge.

  3. Bob G — good info. I suspect this is going on for many other trusts, REMICs, REITs, etc. How does an express trust survive without a fiduciary trustee? Your example may be the answer.

    I also think that “pools” have been sold and resold – without any trust or trustee. When foreclosure attorneys come in — they claim they represent the original trustee to trust that a loan may have been intended to go to. Intended is not the same thing as going there or staying there. If it went there, and the trust was real (which Neil is emphatic it is not) – it only got there through the trustee. Foreclosure attorneys attach the trustee name as if it is part of the trust name. It is not. And, if the trust claims to act without a trustee, then it is a business trust. If in federal court – diversity jurisdiction may then apply. Members must be disclosed to determine jurisdiction. (SCOTUS).

    The major problem is getting judges to first look at representation before they do anything else. Judges are not addressing.

    Neil is right — people need help. Cannot do it alone. I have no affiliation.

  4. Ooops ! here’s the link: https://www.morrisjames.com/newsroom-articles-292.html

  5. Required Reading if you have Wilmington/Christiana Trust or another bank/trust company with offices in Delaware.

  6. Thank you Neil for this. Now — one further step, what if the servicer claims the “trust” owns the loan, and they (the servicer) act on behalf of the trust?

    As far as the law goes, a fiduciary “trust” cannot act without a trustee who is supposed to the legal holder for the benefit of security investors.

    This is what one will confront without a “trustee.”

  7. I have been fighting nasty old Bank of America for over 9 years now. They service transferred one of my loans to even nastier old Shellpoint Mtg who I believe was really a “debt collector” and forded me basically into a short sale, then B of A wrongofully foreclossed upon me with the use of MERS and an assignment by well know “robosignor” Michele Sjoloander which I found out by reading Neil’s great web page but too late as the dirty bums even bid an initial bid way beflow fair market value and they were using the crooked Janeway Law firm that had been fined over $600,000 for all thier ploys in foreclosures. Two other loans went to really really bad Seterus another “debt collector” that tried everyting in the book to force me into foreclosure and all the false, inaccurate and overchanrging and the good old (what a joke) CFPB would do nothing even though I sent them all the proof and Seterus only had to make false claims and NOT provide any kind of proof because there is NONE. Now I have been notified that Mr. Cooper has bought out Seterus and most of those executives are old B of A, Bear Sterns, and Washington Mutual people!! What a true crock and they are picking on me because they know I am a 75 year old Vietnam Veteran with no money to fight them. They also claim Fannie Mae is the holder in due course which I believe is completely false as FNMA is not a lender as far as I know and for sure MERS is not!! They may get me before I can sell, but I keep trying!! Thanks again to Neil and others for all the greart articles and to Fraud Stoppers. Semper Fi

  8. Lenders under the National Mortgage Settlement were supposed to tranfer reliable information and show complete chain of title. Seems this should be raised along w corruption of settlements.

  9. WFB transferred my loan Christiana then Wilmington BSI played football w my home 🏠 Modification loan. KYHC stopped the process of Modification don’t deal w those servicer was prepaid foreclosure

  10. My mortgage @WellsFargo transferred it to Wilmington servicer then Kyhc stopped working on my Modification they don’t deal W Wilmington or Cristisnn they played football w me

  11. Wilmington Savings Fund Society has now joined my party in the 10th year of our battle in Florida. You can’t make this stuff up! Bill P wrote about them on Livinglies back in 2017…

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: