Lying lawyers?! How unusual. Judges are beginning to tune-in, maybe they feel they can now. Maybe judges don’t think foreclosure blood money should be used to prop up Obamacare either, or that Fannie & Freddie should be held in unnecessary captivity any longer.
When a judge looks carefully at the record, the bank loses. The use of Deutsch’s name in the style of the case still shows that Judges are considering the Plaintiff to be the named “Trustee” instead of the named (or named, which is frequently the case) Trust. In fact the Trustee has nothing to do with foreclosures. In this case the Judge wrote the following:
“Judgment (for the homeowner for declaratory relief) was based on findings and conclusions that Deutsche Bank had failed to prove chain of title back to the original lender, now defunct. The sole proof on which the bank relied — a purported assignment from “MERS as nominee for the lender, its successors and assigns” — was held void, because the assignor did not exist when the document was signed.
“Deutsche Bank’s first argument is based on a misrepresentation of the trial record. [i.e. the lawyers were…
View original post 893 more words
> “In fact the Trustee has nothing to do with foreclosures.”
That depends on how the case is titled & filed. I’ve been working on 2 foreclosure cases in NC & one in SC where the Trustee was specifically named. For example;
U.S. BANK, N.A., Not in its individual capacity,
but solely as Trustee for the RMAC TRUST,
We can find no record that the “Trust” even exists as a legal entity & US Bank admits it is not the “holder” of the (promissory) Note, so those are issues for trial, but the identity of the Plaintiff is clear — the Trustee. And in NC, what you usually see is a “Substitute Trustee” bringing a foreclosure action, on behalf of the entity which claims to be the noteholder. If the foreclosure action is successful, it is the Substitute Trustee which sets the foreclosure sale date & is the seller.