Analysis of Fake Beneficiary Declaration

Posted on March 24, 2023 by Neil Garfield

2460 FIFE 8-25-2016 BENEFICIARY DECLARATION QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP OF WA

  1. Toon Hobbs does not say he is an officer of Deutsch Bank.
  2. He also does not say that Deutsche Bank warrants ownership over the alleged or implied unpaid loan account.
  3. As Document Control Officer, he is also NOT a records custodian and decidedly not a TRUST OFFICER.
    1. He does not describe the scope of his duties.
  4. He does not say that Deutsch Bank maintains a trust account on behalf of the obliquely named trust or on behalf of the unspecified holders of the unspecified certificates.
  5. More importantly he makes no reference to a trust agreement, much less attach it.
  6. More importantly he makes no reference to a servicing agreement, much less attach it.
  7. More importantly he makes no reference to an agreement giving Deutsch the right to represent the interests of the certificate holders, much less attach it.
  8. He doesn’t say DBNTC is a beneficiary. he says it is referenced as a beneficiary.
  9. If DBNTC is only a “holder of the promissory note” as stated then it is not a holder in due course, which legally can only mean they did not pay for it, or they received it in a transaction that was not in good faith or they and knowledge of the maker’s substantive defenses.
  10. It also means that they need to show physical delivery (unstated) PLUS authority to enforce it. Just because a note is endorsed does not mean that the authority to enforce is either actual or implied. If the endorsement is not forgery then you still need the endorser to be a party who owns the note or is an authorized representative of the endorser. Otherwise, the endorsement is a legal nullity.
  11. In summary, everything that happened before and after the declaration is a legal nullity.
PRACTICE HINT: This is yet another example of dumping snow on the ground and then blaming someone else for why you can’t see the ground. The ground is simple— it is and always will be an unpaid account receivable due from the homeowner. An account receivable for purposes of foreclosure must be an asset of the company or entity that has been designated as a creditor. In this case, the “Declarant” is presumptively NOT an officer of Deutsch nor anyone else who has the knowledge or competence to produce the loan account and swear under oath eh Deutsch owns it.
I have repeatedly won cases by objecting to the testimony of the witness as being without proper foundation. Someone from Deutsch would be required to bring the loan account with them and testify that Deutsch owns it and that the company designated as a “servicer” is, in fact, servicing the unpaid loan account for Deutsch — not merely that they are attempting to service or that their actions constitute servicing. If they are not the real agent for a real principal, then their testimony is irrelevant, and their documents, reports, and records are irrelevant.
========
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 TO DONATE

Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 76, is a Florida licensed trial and appellate attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business, accounting 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. You will receive an email response from Mr. Garfield  usually within 24 hours. In  the meanwhile you can order any of the following:

Click Here for Preliminary Document Review (PDR) [Basic, Plus, Premium) includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT). Includes title search under PDR Plus and PDR Premium.

Click here for 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 CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CASE ANALYSIS 
*

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND ELSEWHERE ARE BASED ON THE ABILITY OF A HOMEOWNER TO WIN THE CASE NOT MERELY SETTLE IT. OTHER LAWYERS HAVE STRATEGIES DIRECTED AT SETTLEMENT OR MODIFICATION. 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 14 years or more. In addition, although currently rare, it can also result in your homestead being free and clear of any mortgage lien that you contested. (No Guarantee).

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.

Filed under: foreclosure |

« »

2 Responses

  1. ANON, on March 24, 2023 at 5:52 pm said:

    The government is now aware of Deutsche and Credit Suisse problems. Who is next? People don’t understand – it is fraud and past manipulation that is holding economy on tight end. Papergate is correct. The ‘crapola’ hits the fan when payoff occurs. Not before. Because there was never funding. Who is benefitting? Banks in trouble – it is clearly not them. It is the biggest business in the world – (fake) debt collection UNSECURED. Papergate also correct – all stems from GSEs.

  2. Papergate, on March 24, 2023 at 3:17 pm said:

    Excellent article. This same logical logic applies to why millions of homeowners refuse to pay those that can’t prove who they are and the courts accept it. Thanks for taking time to write this. If they can’t prove up after 10-15 years how the hell with they be ‘around’ in 2037 to cancel a ‘note’ and release a ‘mortgage’ if they can’t prove up now. I still believe the crapola will hit the fan big time in the next 7-15 years when those 2005-2035 transaction will get paid off and homeowners won’t have anyone to wind down – who will straighten out the mess then – the US Government???? when most if not all were Fannie/Freddie frauds…

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: