Chase-WAMU: Is it time to Declare Non Judicial Foreclosure Unconstitutional As Applied?

Faced with a notice of foreclosure sale from a company claiming to be the trustee on a deed of trust, homeowners in judicial states are forced to defend using well known facts in the public domain that are not evidence in a court of law. This is particularly evident in scenarios like the Chase WAMU Agreement with the FDIC and the US Bankruptcy Trustee on September 25, 2008.

In my opinion the allowance for nonjudicial foreclosure in circumstances where a new party appears under a lawyer’s claim that the new party is the beneficiary under a deed of trust under parole claims of securitization is an unconstitutional application of an otherwise constitutional  statutory scheme.

All such foreclosures should be converted to judicial and the claimant must prove the essential element under Article 9 §203 UCC that it has a financial interest in the debt because they paid for it. Forcing homeowners to prove that such an interest does not exist is requiring homeowners to have access to knowledge that is unavailable and solely within the control of the party falsely claiming to have the right to enforce the deed of trust and promissory note.

In my opinion this is an unconstitutional application of an otherwise constitutional statutory framework. In plain language it favors expediency and moral hazard over truth or justice.


GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

I have received questions, most notably from Bill Paatalo, the famed Private Investigator who has provided so much information to lawyers, homeowners and a=everyone else about the foreclosure crisis relating to non judicial foreclosures and the Chase-WAMU farce in particular. Here is my answer:

If what you’re saying is that the FDIC never became the beneficiary under the deed of trust, that is correct. But the legal question is whether it needed to become the beneficiary under the deed of trust. As merely a receiver for WAMU the question is whether WAMU was a beneficiary under the deed of trust and the answer is no because they had already sold their interest or presold it before origination.

If WAMU was an actual beneficiary then the FDIC was the receiver for the beneficial interest held by WAMU. If that is the case the FDIC could have been represented to be beneficiary on behalf of the WAMU estate for foreclosures that occurred during the time that FDIC was receiver.
If WAMU was not an actual beneficiary and could not, as your snippet suggests, sell what it did not own, then the FDIC’s receivership is irrelevant except to show that they had no record of any loans owned by WAMU.
One key question that arises therefore is what is a beneficiary? In compliance with Article 9 §203 UCC I think all states that a beneficiary is one who has paid value for the debt, owns it and currently would suffer a debit or loss against that asset by reason of nonpayment by the borrower. Anything less and it is not a beneficiary. And if it isn’t beneficiary, it cannot instruct the trustee to send out notices as though it was a beneficiary.
So any notice of substitution of trustee, which starts the whole foreclosure process is bogus — i.e., void as in a nullity. The newly named trustee does not possess the powers of a trustee under a deed of trust. Hence the notice of default, sale and trustee deed are equally bogus and void. They are all nullities and that means they never happened under out laws even though there are lawyers claiming that they did happen.
Despite the Ivanova decision in California declaring that such foreclosures can only be attacked after the illegal foreclosure, this is actually contrary to both California law and the due process requirements of the US Constitution.
With more and more evidence of fake documents referring to nonexistent financial transactions, the time is ripe for some persistent homeowner, with the help of a good lawyer, to challenge not only the entire Chase-WAMU bogus set up, but to get a ruling from a Federal judge that the abr to preemptive lawsuits to stop collection or foreclosure activity is unconstitutional as applied.
In nonjudicial states it converts a statutory system which is barely within constitutional bounds to an unconstitutional deprivation of property and civil rights without due process, forcing the homeowners to come up with answers and data only available to the malfeasant players seeking to collect revenue instead of paying down the debt.

Here it is: Nonjudicial Foreclosure Violates Due Process in Complex Structured Finance Transactions

No, there isn’t a case yet. But here is my argument.

The main point is that we are forced to accept the burden of disproving a case that had not been filed — the very essence of nonjudicial foreclosure. In order to comply with due process, a simple denial of the facts and legal authority to foreclosure should be sufficient to force the case into a courtroom where the parties are realigned with the so-called new beneficiary is the Plaintiff and the homeowner is the Defendant — since it is the “beneficiary” who is seeking affirmative relief.

But the way it is done and required to be done, the Plaintiff must file an attack on a case that has never been alleged anywhere in or out of court. The new beneficiary anoints itself, files a fraudulent substitution of trustee because the old one would never go along with it, and then files a notice of default and notice of sale all on the premise that they have the necessary proof and documents to support what could have been an action in foreclosure brought by them in a judicial manner, for which there is adequate provision in California law.

Instead nonjudicial foreclosure is being used to sell property under circumstances where the alleged beneficiary under the deed of trust could never prevail in a court proceeding. Nonjudicial foreclosure was meant to be an expedient method of dealing with the vast majority of foreclosures when the statute was passed. In that vast majority, the usual procedure was complaint, default, judgment and then sale with at least one hearing in between. Nearly all foreclosures were resolved that way and it become more of a ministerial act for Judges than an actual trier of fact or judge of procedural rights and wrongs.

But the situation is changed. The corruption on Wall Street has been systemic resulting in whole sale fraudulent fabricated forged documents together with perjury by affidavit and even live testimony. Contrary to the consensus supported by the banks, these cases are complex because the party seeking affirmative relief — i.e., the new “beneficiary” is following a complex script established long before the homeowner ever applied for a loan or was solicited to finance her property.

The San Francisco study concluded, like dozens of other studies across the country that most of the foreclosures were resolved in favor of “strangers to the transaction.” By definition, the use of several layers of companies and multiple sets of documents defining two separate deals (one with the investor lenders and one with the borrower, with the only party in common being the broker dealer selling mortgage bonds and their controlled entities) has turned the mundane into highly complex litigation that has no venue. In non-judicial foreclosures the Trustee is the party who acts to sell the property under instructions from the beneficiary and does so without inquiry and without paying any attention to the obvious conflict between the title record, the securitization record, the homeowner’s position and the prior record owner of the loan.

The Trustee has no power to conduct a hearing, administrative or judicial, and so the dispute remains unresolved while the Trustee proceeds to sell the property knowing that the homeowner has raised objections. Under normal circumstances under existing common law and statutory authority, the Trustee would simply bring the matter to court in an action for interpleader saying there is a dispute that he doesn’t have the power to resolve. You might think this would clog the court system. That is not the case, although some effort by the banks would be made to do just that. Under existing common law and statutory law, the beneficiary would then need to file a complaint, verified, sworn with real exhibits and that are subject to real scrutiny before any burden of proof would shift to the homeowner. And as complex as these transactions are they all are subject to simple rules concerning financial transactions. If there was no money in the alleged transaction then the allegation of a transaction is false.

It was and remains a mistake to allow such loans to be foreclosed through any means other than strictly judicial where the “beneficiary” must allege and prove ownership and the balance due on the loan owed to THAT beneficiary. Requiring homeowners with zero sophistication in finance and litigation to bear the initial burden of proof in such highly complex structured finance schemes defies logic and common sense as well as being violative of due process in the application of the nonjudicial statutes to these allegedly securitized loans.

By forcing the parties and judges who sit on the bench to treat these complex issues as though they were simple cases, the enabling statutes for nonjudicial foreclosure are being applied unconstitutionally.

%d bloggers like this: