Tonight! Discovery — BONY/Mellon Tries to Wriggle Out — 6pm EDT

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the WEST COAST Neil Garfield Show

with Charles Marshall and Bill Paatalo

Or call in at (347) 850-1260,

6pm Eastern Thursdays


Today we discuss on the Show the California case of Bienfeld, et al. v. Ditech Financial, LLC, et al. This case involves as a Defendant Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM), the purported Trustee of a securitized trust at the heart of the lawsuit. While Ditech itself is in bankruptcy protection in a Chapter 11 in New York State, its co-defendant here BNYM is not covered by any potential bk automatic stay.

A pending motion for summary judgment has been continued as the Judge here has partially sided with Plaintiffs to compel Defendant BNYM to provide further and genuine responses to the following issues: chain of title re the subject loan; the transfer, sale, and purchase of the loan; the relationship between the trust beneficiary and its agents/loan servicers, etc.

Critical to the Judge’s order here is the viewing of evidence related to these matters being so critical that the motion for summary judgment was continued to enable Plaintiffs to seek such evidence to more adequately respond to the MSJ itself.

One other interesting wrinkle to this case: The demand and the providing of (here, apparently illegitimate) Certifications of Trustee, which certifications are just that, certifications that the mortgage note at issue is in fact legally part of the securitized trust with which it is supposed to be associated.

Editor’s Note: There is a difference to claiming rights under the note and ownership of the debt by reason of having paid for it. Article 9 §203 UCC is adopted in all 50 states. It says that the claimant (not some third party) must be the one who paid value for the debt.

Also there is more than one entity named DiTech and they are unrelated. Look it up. The one thing they all have in common is that none of them ever made or paid for a loan account.

2 Responses

  1. Same in North Carolina. Claimant can be a “substitute trustee” newly appointed, acting on behalf of the Trust by a Power of Attorney, and the supposed Trust only has to say they are a “Holder”. No one pursuing the foreclosure has to prove anything about having paid for the paper at all. Most of that paperwork also seems to be OK to prepare after the fact, years later. It is sad that the victims have to be forced to provide the cover up of all the fraud, because the fraud problem is too widespread and large in scope. Because the perpetrators of it are “too big”. Kind of like saying the scope of Hitler’s misdeeds against the Jewish people should be allowed to stand, unpunished, according to our justice system, because there were too many people he would have to atone for the deaths of. Or a serial killer killed too many people. Sad.

  2. In California they still foreclose Donald Duck can be on the assignment they don’t care. Grand Theft is what there doing,

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: