US Bank and Deutsch Agree That They Should NOT be named as Plaintiffs in Foreclosures

see US bank Brochure

 

People forget that Deutsch issued a directive to all servicers to cease using its name when initiating foreclosures. The investment banks fought back and apparently paid Deutsch more money in fees for the use of its name. That was around 2011. You might find the article on this blog about it.

In the above link US Bank in a brochure produced by US Bank pretty much says the same thing. Keep in mind that this is a compromise of language to provide cover both the investment bank that sells the certificates and creates other derivative investment products on the one hand, and US Bank who is merely renting out its name. US Bank is trying to thread the needle. They want no liability from any of the potentially illegal transactions conducted while using its name, nominally, in foreclosures and even Pooling and Servicing Agreements.

This is how they write and publish it:

U.S. Bank as Trustee: As Trustee, U.S. Bank Global Corporate Trust Services performs the following responsibilities:

• Holds an interest in the mortgage loans for the benefit of investors [Editor’s note: Not really true. It holds a claim to bare legal title to loan agreement for the benefit of the investment bank]

• Maintains investors/securities holder records [Editor’s Note: Also not true. Only the investment bank maintains such records. US Bank has no access to the names of investors nor any transactions ever conducted with them in the name of any trust in which US Bank is named as trustee.]

• Collects payments from the Servicer [Editor’s note: also not true. US Bank handles no money in connection with any account or any borrower or any servicer and does not disburse them. That is done by the party named as Master Servicer although that term is probably also a misrepresentation.]

• Distributes payments to the investors/ securities holder [Editor’s note: Not true see above.]

Does not initiate, nor has any discretion or authority in the foreclosure process [Editor’s note: True but it does allow its name to be sued as though it was initiating the foreclosure action. This is why I keep bringing up the issue of whether the lawyer who asserts that he or she represents US Bank actually does represent US Bank since US Bank has no interest in the outcome of litigation, receives no foreclosure proceeds, and the lawyer is taking directions strictly from the servicer or in turn is getting instructions from the investment bank.]

• Does not have responsibility for overseeing mortgage servicers [Editor’s note: Thus it is not a trustee in the legal or traditional sense. It has no duties.]

Does not mediate between the servicer(s) and investors in securitization deals  [Editor’s note: True but they are still a co-conspirator in misrepresenting their role in the securitization deals because they are being paid for the use of their name to make the deal look institutional even though it is strictly a private sham]

Does not manage or maintain properties in foreclosure [Editor’s note: True and another example of how US Bank does nothing in connection with any activity relating to any loan claimed to be part of the “trust.”]

Is not responsible for the approval of any loan modifications [Editor’s note: True and an admission that it has no control, which means it is not a trustee even if it is named as a trustee].

All trustees for MBS transactions, including U.S. Bank, have no advance knowledge of when a mortgage loan has defaulted. Trustees on MBS transactions, while named on the mortgage and on legal foreclosure documents, are not involved in the foreclosure process. [Editor’s note: True and they have no knowledge afterwards. In short, they have no knowledge unless requested to say they do because of successful discovery during litigation and an order from the court that US Bank must respond].

 

14 Responses

  1. Because the Government must admit the biggest treason against The American People and the biggest financial fraud committed in the Worlds history …..And they have to disclose name the real parties behind this scam – which lead to the top names in the top Offices

    GO BACK!

  2. I have proof that RFC, then Ocwen kept my loan in the trust long after the repurchase in2010 to divert funds from the trust. Ocwen realizes profit when they foreclose, paying off the trust and realise the difference as profit. 300,000 defaulted loans amounts to 30 billions diverted from subprime trusts since 2013.

  3. I remember that memo from Deutsch Bank trying to find it.
    Here it is foreclosures.
    Search Results
    Web results
    [PDF]deutsche bank memorandum – Mario Kenny
    https://mariokenny.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/deutsche-bank-memorandum.pdf

    Oct 8, 2010 – Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee … foreclosure proceedings, in the name of the Trustee on behalf of the Trusts in connection … Cease and desist from taking any unlawful or improper action with respect to.
    DEUTSCH BANK Memo Reveals Documents and Policies Ripe for …
    https://livinglies.me/…/deutsch-bank-memo-reveals-documents-and-policies-ripe-for-d…

    This completely corroborates what I have been saying for years along with a chorus of … Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to stop Foreclosure Fraud. … Note that the memorandum cited below comes from Deutsch Bank National Trust … These names are often NOT used when foreclosure actions are initiated …

  4. If you are in the state of CA, as an example, ALL of the documents pertaining to the borrower’s (your) original deed of trust purchase agreement are fraudulent on its face and therefore VOID. This is true, but difficult to argue in the court of law due to the fact that if the court negates your contract on this issue, it means that the court contends that every deed of trust contract in CA is VOID. No court wants to rule on this. So, it must be argued carefully and precisely and in a way to which a court might rule in your favor.

    The bank misrepresented and deceived the borrower at the inception of the deed of trust agreement. The bank substituted a Trustee without your permission, acceptance or knowledge. This is against the Statue of Frauds (1677) wherein EVERY change in a real estate contract MUST be agreed to and signed by ALL parties involved in the agreement throughout the life of the agreement. This is BASIC real estate contract law. The other problem with the substituted change is that the bank did this without your knowledge or consent. This means that they are able to change the Trustee at their will. According to SB1638 (1996) the bank is allowed to change the Trustee at their discretion. This means that the acting Trustee is not allowed to NOT be substituted if they deem so otherwise. This means that the Trustee is NOT independent, as it was ruled by the CA Supreme Court in 1978 in Garfinkle v Superior Court of Contra Costa County [21 Cal.3d 268}. The independence of the Trustee is deemed imperative to the non-judicial foreclosure process because the courts have given the Trustee the presumption of correctness. This means that it is the intention of the non-judicial process that the Trustee act as the court and therein what the Trustee states as true and correct is deemed true and correct. This is due to the fact that the Trustee is to be independent as based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1978.

    However, in 1996, the Senate Bill 1638 became enacted law in 1998. This Bill allowed the banks to substitute the Trustee at the will of the bank. This means that the Trustee is controlled by the financial institution. This means that there is no independence of a Trustee at the inception of the Deed of Trust agreement. This means that if the bank does not inform the borrower of this fact at the inception of the contract agreement then they have deceived the borrower into using a Deed of Trust agreement. This means that through this misrepresentation by the banks of the material fact that the Trustee is not independent, that the Deed of Trust agreement is in fact fraudulent on its face and therefore VOID. This means that there was never a legal Deed of Trust contract agreement to begin with. Let this sink in!!

    This means that you acquiesce to a viable contract if you argue ANYTHING outside of these facts. This is what the opposition wants you to get to. The fact that there is no contract means that absolutely anything you argue pertaining to the contract brings you to the point of agreeing that there in fact actually was a contract. This is what they want.

    First, they must prove that the original and subsequent substituted trustees in the Deed of Trust agreement are in fact independent and can protect the borrower from ANY wrongdoing by a financial institution or any other party acting on behalf of the financial institution throughout the duration of the deed of trust agreement. They are incapable of proving this issue. This is where they do not want to be, because they cannot prove that the Trustee is independent. If the original and any subsequent Trustee is not independent and can protect either party’s best interest in a deed of trust agreement then there is no deed of trust agreement. This was the intent of the CA Supreme Court ruling in 1978 that the trustee is entrusted to protect BOTH parties from any wrongdoing to the other party in a deed of trust agreement.

    As the Trustee is given the presumption of correctness in all of the their actions in a non-judicial foreclosure procedure in the state of CA, it is assumed that all of the documents and actions by either party that the trustee is entrusted to deem as true and correct are in fact so. This means that the trustee is entrusted to make sure that the bank follow all of the rules to the deed of trust and the power of sale clause, CA Civil Code 2924 et al, in the state of CA. If the bank controls the trustee and are allowed to break the rules of the power of sale clause then the trustee is incapable of acting in the best interest of the borrower at any point of the duration of the deed of trust agreement. This means that the borrower was deceived by the bank in that the bank knew all along that the trustee was not independent and was in fact controlled by the bank since the inception of the deed of trust agreement. This means that there is legal contract.

    If there is no true legal deed of trust contract agreement then the bank lent the borrower money under false pretense and the deed of trust is void and the money borrowed by the borrower is not backed by any real estate agreement. The money borrowed was in fact borrowed under a different premise to which is not arguable in this specific case and must be decided in a different court. But, the court herein, MUST rule, based on this premise that the deed of trust is in fact VOID. Now, since there is not deed of trust contract the borrower is the true owner of the title then there is no claim by the bank to any part of the borrower’s title. Therefore, the bank must now prove to the court of their standing to foreclose. If the bank has no legal agreement to any claim to title based on their intended use of a deed of trust contract which is fact deemed void then the bank has no standing for any claim whatsoever to the borrower’s title. They might have claim to the money that they lent the borrower, but this would be a personal loan or some other instrument, but this is another argument in another court of law and cannot be included in this case. The borrower is the owner of the property and the money.

    Whatever documents a bank or trustee acting on behalf of the bank might show are bogus simply based on the fact that they first must prove that they have standing. They cannot prove standing in ANY non-judicial foreclosure procedure because they are incapable of proving that the trustee is in fact independent in their position. Since the CA supreme court stated that this must be the case, and the SB1638 states otherwise, and the banks have acted against the CA supreme court ruling and the courts have allowed the banks to control the trustee using 1638, then the trustee is not independent and therefore, based on CA Supreme Court and the Power of Sale clause (CA Civ Code 2924) the deed of trust is in fact void. If it is void then the bank has no standing.

    Also, this means that since the inception of the deed of trust agreement between the lender and the borrower, ANY monies collected on the basis of this agreement have been collected so illegally. This means that for every month, and every year that the borrower has paid for the money borrowed based on this agreement have been billed and collected for under false pretense and must be returned to the borrower until the courts can rectify how the bank is able to actually collect on the money that they lent due to the fact that there is no legal binding agreement in place that instructs the borrower appropriately and legally to pay the debt off to the lender. Since the deed of trust agreement is bogus, the bank has no legal basis to come for any debt to the lent money to the borrower. They have no legal right to challenge the borrower’s title whatsoever.

    I am a nationally certified bloomberg forensic loan securitization auditor and in all of the securitizations I’ve worked with throughout the nation 100% contain various elements of fraud making these mortgages either void or voidable.

    You can find more about this specific issue on my website.

  5. ANON- my thoughts exactly. And through this whole debacle, it was always agreed that no one ever actually bought the mortgages (notes), they only bought the mortgage servicing rights for 1-2 cents on the dollar. You could read the announcements in Default Servicing News, the servicers’ trade journal. And the judges still seem to be confused that the mortgagecan be assigned, but the mortgage note has to be negotiated, for value. And there has to be an unbroken chain of ownership ( legitimate) otherwise the foreclosing plaintiff has no standing, and therefore the court has no jurisdiction..

  6. Java – great question. But F/F invested in private trusts – and that is where the problem lies.

    Here is my guess after over a decade of looking at this. Poppy is onto something. And, Neil may recall when I pointed it out to him a long time ago. Those damn bottom tranches.

    Certain tranches are NOT securitized — even from the very beginning. As loans are placed in default, these loans are “delegated” to the hell in those very bottom tranches that are not securitized. Someone owns them, however, and the servicer continues to “Service” (debt collect) for those loans. And, that “someone” has likely changed many times over the years (originally it would have been the Depositor or Sponsor that kept those tranches). Poppy may be right that the servicer purchased those tranches.

    The servicer hides behind those bottom tranches. Without securitization, there is no trustee – no need for it. So the trustee is out. So now servicer claims to service for the trust — but without a trustee — even though the trustee name gets attached to the trust name when they go to foreclose – to fool the courts. And fooled the courts are.

    This is financial maneuvering. Violation of the FDCPA – and is all bogus.

    But – the government allows it. WHY????? They fear a bigger consequence.

  7. Please note that the Servicer is getting authority/powers from the “PSA” which is no more because the Trust was DISSOLVED and in my opinion the so called PSA is also gone with the dissolved trust therefore PSA is no more and the Servicer/Master Servicer also lack standing.

  8. In the every case I have reviewed, the nominal lender on the Deed of Trust/Mortgage and Promissory Note, selling to and being paid by Seller, and Seller selling to and being paid by Sponsor; the Sponsor selling to and being paid by Depositor and depositor selling to and paid by Securities Underwriter; the Securities Underwriter selling to and being paid by the Dealers. Dealers selling to and being paid by Agents and Agents selling to and being paid by the investors, “XYZ Bank” as trustee for ABC Trust in a series of securitization transactions, pursuant to Trust Agreement/Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated__, “A” as servicer, “B” as Master Servicer, “C” as Securities Administrator LPMI Insurers, NIM Insurer, nor MERS or any other straw entity, had at any time relevant to the subject matter before any Court, to the present, suffered any actual or threatened injury as a result of the Borrower’s non-payment of monthly payments pursuant to the original terms of the Note, nor because of alleged default thereon, nor can any actual or threatened injury be traced to any other proceedings in any other court, any action involving Proof of Claim, or otherwise, and therefore there never was any legitimate redress available to any of these parties by a favorable decision.
    In my opinion, as above, and with a reasonable degree of factual and certainty, the disclosed principals in the securitization chain, up to and including the pool trustee, are neither creditors nor are they authorized agents for the creditors, without proof that they have been granted this authority pursuant to the terms of the securitization documents. Otherwise, the participants, including servicers, master servicers and pool trustees, in my opinion, are interlopers or imposters whose design is to take title to the property they have no right to claim, and to enforce a note which is evidence of an obligation that is not owed to them but rather to another.

  9. WHO DOES HOLD TITLE?
    None of these importers. In 2008 due to MAJOR TRIGGER EVENT, the trusts were dissolved, and these impostors were paid 100 cent per dollar in addition to the Credit Default Swaps and payments from the various insurance companies. The toxic Assets were purchased from the AIG(FP) by the Maiden Lanes LLCs I, II and III under the supervision of US Treasury and Federal Reserve pursuant to Assets Purchase Agreement of December 12, 2008. In March 2011 the same toxic assets were purchased by the AIG(FP) from Maiden Lane and were sold to Black Rock, which were later in 2012 sold to Goldman Sachs & Co and Credit Suisse.
    In my opinion the owner is US Government which just wants to stay behind the scene.
    Applying the $4.6 TRILLION from the U.S. Treasury to cover losses to investors and homeowners caused by fraudulent appraisals, fraudulent ratings, and deceptive lending practices, (instead of giving the money to, US Bank, JPMorgan Chase Bank NA/ Bank of New York Mellon and Deutsche Bank et al and many more on Wall Street) would have allowed an average of $657,142 to be applied on each so-called mortgage transaction providing more than enough to provide substantial relief to investors, and correcting the bogus loans to fair market value levels, thus leaving the investors where they intended to be and the homeowners where they intended to be.
    U.S. Treasury maintains the illusion of authenticity of the mortgage bonds and the mortgages, obscures the identity of creditors in foreclosures, and continues to indirectly prop up balance sheets of mega institutions on Wall Street. The true value of the group is not as reported but more like a negative figure. Let it fall and do what is right for investors and homeowners and the economy is largely fixed. Continue with current policy and our credibility in world markets will continue to erode. I’m not the only one who figured this out. Central Bankers and world economists understand this perfectly well.
    The first ever GAO (Government Accountability Office) audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in the past few months. What was revealed in the audit was startling, $16,000,000,000,000.00 (TRILLION) had been secretly given out to US Banks, Corporations and Foreign Banks. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments.
    Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion-dollar bailout is obvious the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs. The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit.

  10. Oh and NCMC was in bankruptcy until 2016…servicer surreptitiously moving assets, from a deceased corporation. My money is on the servicer gathering information and presenting it to the party trying to foreclose, much of the time. 100%…the servicer in my case.

    Footnote: this is all before he court(s), 2 federal 3 state proceedings and a current appeal to the district court and counting. Not one judge has used the exhibits, evidence because I am woefully inadequate with procedure and getting properly before the court. This is how they are beating me, not because the case is not disturbing.

    My point: you can have all the evidence you need, but without knowledge of these courts and proceedings, the lawyers mop the floor with you. Where I am, hired 3 lawyers and they know less about this stuff than I do. They too were woefully inadequate, and did not listen to me, I wasted valuable money and time. Woe is me, Lol

  11. “the servicer is their lender”

    In my case with New Century Mortgage Corporation (“NCMC”), the CSMC (Credit Suisse)Trust. “the servicer”, Ocwen (PSA designated) bought the remaining Class X certificates (already non-conforming, defaulted, non-performing loans), in or around the origination of the trust in 2007.

    Trust opened-operated for deposit on 01 August- 31 August 2007.

    Before the court: the note was never assigned to the CSMC Trust from NCMC. The servicer (attempted) an assignment of the note 03 August 2012, as attorney in fact, removing NCMC interest and transferring NCMC interest to the CSMC Trust, with US Bank as trustee, with an “unattached allonge”. Since 2009, Ocwen has signed every document, with different employee’s, stating the Ocwen employees work for US Bank, NCMC or Ocwen, the servicer. Every document is to be forwarded to the servicer. The last stop is the servicer and they are the only ones who would know, where the loan is, the “real” status, if there is an investor other than the servicer, …the servicer populates every document and those documents cannot be trusted, they are self-serving.

    There is no one else, but the servicer foreclosing. There is no trust possession-interest, period. US Bank knows nothing about this scam…they do not foreclose. The only party privy to payments, defaults, assignments for rights (whether they actually happened or not), who the investor is, etc…is Ocwen.

    If a loan was in a trust, the servicer, up to a point would be responsible for making defaulted payments to the trust. However, in the event of a serious default, they are highly motivated to foreclose, because they can get their payments back from the trust…and delete the loan from the trust, then it is “actually” unsecured. The hook is acquiring the loan, keeping in the name of the trust, as though it is still secured and moving to the court in the trusts name. They trick the court and the homeowner. They get the order to foreclose, easily in non-judicial states. When they get legal title in their name, they sell the house for a tidy profit, getting equitable title.

    If the servicer buys the “junk” loans, as in the Class X Certificates they would be entitled to get payments as the assignee; however, it fails because they come to the court saying, they are someone other than the investor, using trustee’s, substitute trustee’s, no assignment-transfer to the trust from origination. They produce lost assignments, unattached allonges, affidavits with gross mistakes, deeds of trust assigned prior to acquiring the debt where they have no rights to the DOT without an interest of debt (contract issue), MERS nonsense-as a beneficiary…loads of proper assignments are missing and the trust is closed. The list is longer than this, this is just a bite.

    I think this is correct?

  12. How are debt collectors like Specialized Loan Servicing coming in as servicers and then become the Plaintiff in fraudclosures on behalf of Freddie and Fannie. What is F&F hiding ??????

  13. This is a very important topic. Thank you Neil. Right now, I think, it is the most important issue that has no answer.

    But, you need to go further. Without a trustee, who by all case law and accounting by PSAs, is the legal holder of the mortgage, the trust is not operating as a traditional trust, but, rather, as a business trust – which must then have a business address. There is no business address for these trusts. All are c/o of the servicer. So there is no business trust. .

    As corruptpedia2 has pointed out, the accounting is missing. It is the trustee who is responsible for security compliance. The trustee must keep records of money distributed. There is no difference with these REMICs from any traditional trust operation. It is not the job of the servicer or servicer to keep track of money distributed. All they do is collect money. .

    What you are saying here, in effect, is if a borrower is paying, for all purposes, the servicer is their lender. The trust is, therefore, irrelevant. In that case, there should be an assignment to the servicer. If there is not – there is no clear title. In actuality, the trust should be of no concern to any borrower, and no one should hold them as the “Lender.” However, is this case – there must be an assignment to the servicer.

    Understand that foreclosures come in under the name of the trustee as legal holder, and this is wrong, because foreclosures have long been removed from trusts. You state – trustees hold “bare legal title.” But Bare legal title may be the only title there is. If trustees do not hold title, who does? The servicer? Courts long ago negated servicers coming in for foreclosures.

    Believe there is indemnification by servicer for trustee, but that should NOT negate that the trustee still remains the mortgage holder as long as the loan is current.

    However, when there is default, the loan is liquidated, and given a zero value to the trust. The collection rights are removed from the trust. The trustee’s role is over. If anyone holds the note after removal from the trust, that entity is not disclosed. The servicer conceals by even suggesting that the trustee and trust are still involved. This is the basic fundamentals of derivatives.

    What you are suggesting, which I do not doubt, ALL of these loans have been reported in default, and the trusts were just a “shell” to hold collection rights.

    So the question you do not address Neil is — WHO DOES HOLD TITLE? Who does hold the mortgage? If there is no one – then there never was a mortgage to begin with.

    Can anyone here answer the question — if you are paying is your money going to the trustee for the benefit of security investors? Or, are these trusts completely dissolved with no longer any current pass-through? All top tranches have been prematurely paid out. Only bottom tranches remain (no principal pass-through if open – only interest). Thus, principal portion of payment remains with the servicer. .
    How can these trusts still even claim to be operating?

    These questions are unanswered by anyone. Any insight is appreciated.

    Thank you. .

  14. We have US Bank in the capacity of trustee on our ” notice of new creditor” from the servicer. We included US Bank in private arbitration, as creditor, and received such a statement saying ,this has nothing to do with us. Deal with the servicer. We were triumphant with the award. It will be interesting to see what they do next.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: