Livinglies's Weblog

The purpose of this terminology and sentence structure is to create names, not entities. These are bankruptcy remote, liaiblity remote, reality remote names without any legal person or entity appearing in the chain.

And let me be clear — yes I do think that anyone who has entered into a transaction in which a mortgage and note were signed has good reason to contest to existence of any debt, since it is not claimed as owned by anyone. Such ownership is ALWAYS erroneously and deceptively implied.

The banks are highly exposed on this issue and they know it. Their only strategy that works is deep pockets for the long haul, deception and intimidation. All of that can and should (in my opinion) be challenged by more homeowners who will probably find that their “balance” (if any exists) is substantially lower than anything they had imagined.

Instead they may find that they have a perfectly valid claim for disgorgement of all money paid by the homeowner and damages for being cut out of a deal that the homeowner was drafted into participating.

There are dozens of ways to mount such challenges most of which have been settled confidentially in which the homeowner has been contracted to be silient in exchange for compensaiton.

One of those strategies is the offer of a payoff provided the announced or named claimaint (1) acknowledges the payoff and (b) claims, in writing signed by an officer that is legally authorized to issue the acknowedlge ment because it is the owner of the alleged underlying obligation.

It is a typical estoppel letter situation as it is known in Florida in which it is already authorized by statute.  When the demand produces crickets, the homeowner sues for mandatory injunction, quiet title against the known (i.e., named) parties and damages/ idsgorgement in part for itnentional interference in tehr elatinship between the hoemowner and the hidden creditor, if any exists.

If John Q Smith is a real person living in some legal jurisdiction, he exists. But that doesn’t mean that anyone can just use his name to engage in a transaction with anyone else, much less the courts. And that is exactly what is happening with XYZ Bank, as trustee in cases where the lawyers have been instructed to file in the name of a well-known brand name bank as trustee — not on its own behalf but on behalf of a trust.

That trust, as I have written as recently as 2 days ago does not exist and even if there was a trust agreement in existence, the trust contains nothing to manage. So naming it as claimant, beneficiary or Palitniff is possible if a lawyer field it, but that does not mean that it is a claimant, beneficiary, or Plaintiff — especially when the XYZ bank, as trustee knows nothing about the legal proceedings and has never issued any instructions commanding the lawyer to file the foreclosure.

That lawyer, by the way, has in nearly all cases never had any contact, contract or other relationship with XYZ Bank which is why I am suggesting more attacks on appearances by counsel for the foreclosure mills. The lawyer knows he or she is getting paid but they don’t by whom and when the case comes to their attention it is by way of an electronic screen with instructions and data from unknown sources together with unverified reports.

I’m following up my serial attack on fake trusts named in foreclosure actions against homeowners. My article on Bank of New York Mellon was received very well by a number of people — including from some surprising quarters.

And I have written consistently about how trusts are legally created and what is a trust and what is not a trust regardless of label. Like when the PSA recites that it is a trust agreement, it isn’t. There is a hidden document that purports to be a trust agreement but still does not rise to the occasion. There is no trust. It is all an exercise in concealing the fact that the investment bank is doing business with itself.

Today we look at WSFS which is a Chartered Federal Savings Bank. Keep in mind that if it is not taking deposits or making loans it is not really operating as a bank.

I have in mind one specific iteration of the widely used WSFS moniker. “Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB d/b/a Christiana Trust as Owner Trustee of the Residential Credit Opportunities Trust III.” Just like Bank of New York Mellon as trustee, this says nothing of actual, legal or even possible significance. The purpose of this terminology and sentence structure is to create names, not entities.

1. If Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB is doing business as (DBA) Christiana Trust then two things are true. (a) WSFS is NOT acting as a bank and (b) “Christiana trust is merely an alternate name for WSFS. So far that tells us nothing.
2. Then you have a grammar problem that has been intentionally created.
   1. WSFS might be the trustee of Residential Credit Opportunities Trust III.
      1. This could only be true if WSFS officers have created and maintained a trust account for identifiable beneficiaries with assets granted to it by a trustor or settlor. this is most certainly not the case.
      2. You have a right to see that account and you should ask for it in discovery. I don’t think you can reach for it in a QWR or DVL although you can include a request for verification that WSFS is the owner of the underlying debt.
   2. WSFS is doing business as Christiana Trust as Owner Trustee of the Residential Credit Opportunities Trust III.
      1. This appears to be the case. In most instances, WSFS will take the position in litigation that when pushed to the wall, it is neither the party in interest nor the trustee for any actual trust.
      2. In this instance, the use of trust language in creating names without entities is extended to the point of absurdity.
3. So there are those who will point out that the name “Christiana Trust has been registered in the state of Delaware that allows LLCs to use the word “trust” in their name. But look closely. Did anyone say they were referring to THAT Christiana Trust? The point is that there is no trust — just an illusion that passes when one does not look closely enough.
4. So then there is Residential Credit Opportunities Trust III which is also either a fictitious name or a reference to Residential Credit Opportunities Trust III, LLC. THAT company has filed an initial registration statement with the SEC. It isn’t a trust either.

The bottom line is that WSFS moniker is being used as a shield and a sword without any one person, company, trust, or other business entity directly asserting any title or rights to receive any payments from a homeowner or any property owned by a homeowner. It isn’t fraud if the defendant did not know the information was untrue. it isn’t fraud if the defendant’s words implied something that was untrue if the defendant did not mean to deceive. On the other hand, it might be fraud if the defendant was not acting as a lender, successor lender, or servicer.

But in all events, the claimant, plaintiff, or beneficiary that goes by that moniker intends to maintain plausible deniability which is to say, it is a ghost and not a legal person.

CLICK TO DONATE

Click

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

• 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.

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: Wilmington Savings Fund Society, WSFS |