The LaSalle Bank Myth

The progression from LaSalle Bank to Bank of America to US Bank is highly suspect. While it is true that there was a merger between Bank of America and LaSalle Bank, It is equally true that the merger was preceded by a reverse merger between LaSalle Bank and ABN AMRO.
*
And there is nothing in the public record to tell us what happened in the merger with respect to the position of being a trustee for the alleged trust. So the required starting point is a presumption that LaSalle Bank was appointed Trustee and might still be the trustee. That does NOT mean that LaSalle Bank has any legal or financial connection to your loan.
*
The migration from Bank of America to US Bank is even more suspect. The assertion is that U.S. Bank is the successor to Bank of America. If that is true there is nothing in the public record to support that assertion. US Bank is certainly not the successor to Bank of America by reason of any merger or acquisition.
*
That part is definitely true. So the question becomes how did the position of trustee shift from Bank of America to US Bank? I know that there was an announcement of the sale of the position by Bank of America to US Bank, but I know of no legal authority under which a trustee can sell its fiduciary position under a trust agreement to a third-party without the express consent of at least the beneficiaries and probably the original trustor.
*
But if the sale was actually the sale of a licensing agreement in which Bank of America was receiving fees on a periodic basis for the use of its name as trustee for an alleged trust even though there was no trust, then such a sale would probably be valid — unless it was part of an illegal scheme to defraud the courts and the public. In this case, all those restrictions apply.
*
My analysis concludes that LaSalle Bank was kept alive and is therefore still the legal trustee, assuming the trust exists at all.
DID YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE?

Nobody paid me to write this. I am self-funded, supported only by donations. My mission is to stop foreclosures and other collection efforts against homeowners and consumers without proof of loss. If you want to support this effort please click on this link and donate as much as you feel you can afford.

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to Stop Foreclosure Fraud.

Click

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:
CLICK HERE ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation. Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
Please visit www.lendinglies.com for more information.

16 Responses

  1. ANON, it only becomes a “racket” for those that fail to attack the mortgage transaction/contract. Those that do attack find that the banks will negotiate on your terms not theirs. Problem is blogs like this that promote failed arguments, and chain-of-title/forensic/securitization scammers are throwing mud in clear water.

    Have you noticed that no one commenting on this blog has ever been successful. You and the other “losers”, which I don’t mean derogatorily, need to upchuck the Kool-Aid and do what works–ATTACK THE CONTRACT!!!!!

  2. legisman, this is my thoroughly researched “opinion”. There is a great distinction between the REMIC Rules and the UCC standard. (they are suing me as the REMIC-Plaintiff, the owner, governed by their contract, and the REMIC Trust, not just the holder of the instrument)

    I have never drank the kool-aid. The contract is the problem. I am stating, I do have standing under any of the the contracts. There is no “contract” without me. Further, they-the Plaintiff, MUST be in possession of the document-note- BEFORE they institute the proceedings again any of us. Most of the time they are NOT in possession.

    I have never said your conclusions are wrong. My challenge is not in anyway saying, the note doesn’t say…upon default, I hereby agree to you taking possession of the property.

    Untie the knot from your shorts…Lol

  3. No one disagreeing that the courts are handling cases poorly. But, after the crisis, no one could get anything but a loan mod – if they were lucky. Did not matter whether you were in default or not. These loans cannot be refinanced with clear title. This shouts that loans were already placed in wrong default before any borrower missed a payment. Everyone should know the real party they are negotiating with. And, a couple missed payments (often the borrower tries to reinstate but is blocked) should not demand foreclosure. This is a racket.

  4. Poppy, you like most homeowners who’ve bought into the propaganda and garbage dispensed by legal illiterates and scammers, made comments that are factually and legally wrong. Also, just like Garfield you obviously don’t know the difference between a “holder” and a “holder in due course.” Educate yourself, look it up.

    And, do you realize the ridiculousness of your last comment: “I disagree with many of these courts. Just because they say it, doesn’t make it legal OR true.” Facts are, the holdings of these hundreds of courts is the law, thus, legal!

  5. The issue I have is: the Plaintiff standing before the court and the documents claiming a default-ownership-person “entitled to enforce”… The contract is the issue ( which contract). But the contract (promissory note) states, the note can be sold, transferred, “to a party with Rights-and ENTITLED to enforce”…The contract is very specific regarding a Holder in Due Course, upsurping that of a mere Holder. The UCC differs from the REMIC in various ways. The UCC Rule when used, which was acquired with the SALE, not a transfer, makes the note and the rights associated with it, commercial paper. This was unknown to the buyer…further it removes any contractual provisions for the homeowner to redress injury or problems associated with the transaction. Further, I vehemently disagree with the courts on standing. “We”, the borrowers are directly linked to the Trust creation; whereby, certificates can be issued for-profit and sold to investors, off our payment stream.

    legisman…I know what you are saying is correct; however, I disagree with many of these courts. Just because they say it, doesn’t make it legal OR true…with all due respect.

  6. ANON, once again like most people who’ve bought the scammer garbage, you fail to understand the homeowner breached the contract for failing to make timely payments.

    The question before the court is did the borrower breach, not that there wasn’t a trust, the loan was securitized incorrectly, or some other nonsense. Did the borrower breach– Period? Without a offense, or defense to that fact goodby property!

  7. The crisis trusts were not compliant with Regulation AB (pilot program for private label RMBS in early 2000’s). That is why we had the 2008 explosion, and for no other reason. They were shut down, and all capital “warehousing” was stopped immediately. Does not anyone recall that? But the problem is that these crisis trusts had already been sold to investors BEFORE they were determined non-compliant for RMBS securitization. So what we are dealing with is securitization, but which is not valid securitization. I was once asked — “what do you have against securitization?” I answered – “nothing as long as it is done right and in compliance.” Unfortunately, because we might have had a huge financial collapse had the “non-compliance” been revealed, concealment was done. How do we know this? Look at the SEC letters to the issuers, and the rules and regulations as determined by the SEC for Regulation AB in late 2005/early 2006 (massive reading). Look at what an “ultimate pool” for a REMIC must be, and how it was actually done by prospectus. Look at the number of REMICs determined from one title series “trust” name.” See that the ultimate pool cannot be segregated, but it was. Such segregation is against all rules because this, naturally, would cause misinformation to investors, and adverse consequence to some, but that is what was done – segregation. Separate REMICs from one pool is not permitted, but that is what was done. And, some of those REMICs were specifically “set-up” to never be securitized from onset, and, rather, sold out the back door to undisclosed parties IMMDEDIATELY. Further, as loans did default (manufactured or not) they are subordinated to un-securitized non-compliant (false) segregated REMICs in violation, and sold out the back door. So, yes, we had securitization, but it was not valid. Not for crisis “RMBS” loans. Not valid securities. And, no one has yet challenged the SEC rules, and validity of the private label “Trusts” and “REMICs” and securities in any court that I have found. This makes it difficult to convince judges — the “trusts” were not kosher. This does not mean all securitization is invalid. Once we start deviating to that, we lose the fraud. Why does this matter? Homeowners who are trying to save their homes have a right to know who is their creditor. Non-compliance by “issuers” blocked compliance to disclose any true creditor. Made disclosure – impossible.

  8. Ian, your comment strains credulity: “perhaps the cases you cite weren’t pleaded correctly.” There are hundreds of cases where the court held the same, which I already pointed out.

    Furthermore, you’ve bought into the nonsense. What facts do you have to support your legal conclusions, “the Trust doesn’t exist in any legal capacity,” and “why is no one able to show that at any time, was any loan on a balance sheet?”

  9. Legisman, perhaps the cases you cite weren’t pleaded correctly. The TILA says that a consumer/borrower/homeowner has to know who their lender is, which makes sense.
    But if they get a notice of foreclosure, the Trust doesn’t exist in any legal capacity, the XYZ Bank as Trustee doesn’t know anything about it, the servicer isn’t any help as they all read off a script, and the IRS rules or regulations or laws aren’t complied with regarding REMICS, not to mention GAAP, FASB, SEC or anyone else.
    On the one hand, you have the homeowner struggling to “cure” their arrearages. Put that over there for now.
    On the other hand, only the injured party is allowed in the courtroom.
    Put that over here, and stare at it for awhile-
    Don’t you think that both sides should be required to toe the line and obey the law? The courts are certainly making the homeowner follow the rules.
    If nothing else, why is no one able to show that at any time, was any loan on a balance sheet? I’ve had to write off some bad debt owed me by developers abs other contractors- it’s an asset when placed, a liability when it becomes bad debt, and then it’s outta there.

  10. Anyone arguing securitization deserves to lose their home for failing to understand how matters actually work, and the the law. Its a stupid argument perpetrated by scammers, incompetent atts. and their useful idiots, and their dupes fall for it without questioning the nonsense.

    RODENHURST V. BANK OF AM., 773 F. Supp. 2d 886, 899 (D. Haw. 2011) (“The overwhelming authority does not support a [claim] based upon improper securitization.”) “[S]ince the securitization merely creates a separate contract, distinct from plaintiffs’ debt obligations under the Note and does not change the relationship of the parties in any way, plaintiffs’ claims arising out of securitization fail.”HORVATH V. BANK OF NY, N.A., 641 F.3d 617, 626 n.4 (4th Cir. 2011) (securitization irrelevant to debt); COMMONWEALTH PROP. ADVOCATES, LLC V. MERS, 263 P.3d 397, 401-02 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (securitization has no effect on debt); UPPERMAN V.DEUTSCHE BANK NAT’L TRUST CO., No. 01:10-cv-149, 2010 WL1610414, at *3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 16, 2010) (rejecting claims because they are based on an “erroneous legal theory that the securitization of a mortgage loan renders a note and corresponding security interest unenforceable and unsecured”).

    I could post hundreds more!

  11. Poppy is correct. And, if you trace these fake trusts on sites such as Lexis-Nexus — you will see “investors.” One big one is PIMCO. And, of course Blackrock. But you will see many others – particularly mutual funds. These “investors” just hold the dissolved (invalid) securities for one purpose – foreclosure.

  12. This is all one giant scam. Read Prospectuses and PSAs, specially older, back in 2004-2007. I didn’t find any schedules of “mortgages” attached to PSAs. But I found the real parties.

    ALL so-called mortgages are purportedly “pooled” in Trusts while in fact everything is transferred in book-entry form to Cede &Co via Depository Trust Corporation, both are branches of Federal Reserve.

    Cede is the only beneficiary and holder of data about loans.

    Cede issue certificates about this data to Big Banks (who are owners of FR). Information about performance of certain certificates is sold to investors as bets.

    But neither Cede or DTC never participate in collection of your “mortgage payments” – so they appointed a “Servicer” – Black Knight, Inc former LPS/DocX, owned by Fidelity who also owns major Title Insurance agencies.

    Black Knight collects your payments via lockbox agreements with third parties (Transcentra/Regulus or similar) and does all other “servicing” such as forge documents about non existing transactions and hire lawyers to lie to the Courts.

    ALL your money, including escrow, are pocketed by Big Banks as additional revenue.

    Property taxes and insurances are paid by CoreLogic, Inc (now owned by Bank of America via Black Knight) from Big Banks’ operating pools consisting from investors money.

    Courts promoted this fraud above the sky and now need to cover for it.

    If judges admit it is fraud, it means all their decisions at least last 20 years must be reversed and homes returned to rightful owners.

    Nobody will admit that these foreclosures were a theft of commission from Wall Street contractors (homeowners) who were forced to work on plantation named “securitization” .

    Because it is all covered by the Government and coming from a private company which owns everything in America- Federal Reserve.

    And Big Banks can continue their crimes since here is no one who can or who is willing to stop it.

  13. The same way a 2007 “empty” REMIC goes into a 2018 non-existent, closed REMIC, Java… No issue, says the court, looks fine.

  14. And How exactly does a 2016 “Trust” get a “loan” put into it in 2020 ?????

  15. Hammer — trustee supposed to be legal holder by all AMERICAN law. But, they are not. The problem with the “crisis” loans is that they were not compliant with securitization “pilot” program rules and regulations. So there is no legal holder “trustee,” and no legal trust. Trustee should never be attached as part of any valid trust name. Trustee and Trust (if valid) are distinct. Here, neither are valid. But attorneys try to convince judge that they are. Judges “buy” attorneys’ word. Especially if a big law firm. That word is false. How does one address that?

  16. So agreement to use name can be legal if no trust but LaSalle would not be legal trustee if no trust?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: