U.S. Bank v. CONGRESS | Alabama Appeals Court Reverses Decision on Chain of Title Case, Ruling Hinges on Question of Bogus Allonges
Posted on08 June 2012.
Via NakedCapitalism-
In a unanimous decision, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed a lower court decision on a foreclosure case, U.S. Bank v. Congress and remanded the case to trial court.
We’d flagged this case as important because to our knowledge, it was the first to argue what we call the New York trust theory, namely, that the election to use New York law in the overwhelming majority of mortgage securitizations meant that the parties to the securitization could operate only as stipulated in the pooling and servicing agreement that created that particular deal. Over 100 years of precedents in New York have produced well settled case law that deems actions outside what the trustee is specifically authorized to do as “void acts” having no legal force. The rigidity of New York trust has serious implications for mortgage securitizations. The PSAs required that the notes (the borrower IOUs) be transferred to the trust in a very specific fashion (endorsed with wet ink signatures through a particular set of parties) before a cut-off date, which typically was no later than 90 days after the trust closing. The problem is, as we’ve described in numerous posts, that there appears to have been massive disregard in the securitization for complying with the contractual requirements that they established and appear to have complied with, at least in the early years of the securitization industry. It’s difficult to know when the breakdown occurred, but it appears that well before 2004-2005, many subprime originators quit bothering with the nerdy task of endorsing notes and completing assignments as the PSAs required; they seemed to take the position they could do that right before foreclosure. Indeed, that’s kosher if the note has not been securitized, but as indicated above, it is a no-go with a New York trust. There is no legal way to remedy the problem after the fact.
…
© 2010-12 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Related posts:
- Adam Levitin | Securitization Chain-of-Title: the US Bank v. Congress ruling posted by Adam Levitin . Over on Housing Wire, Paul…
- Future of foreclosures in N.J. hinges on state Supreme Court decision | US Bank N.A. v. Guillaume I disagree with the judge’s motion words below and see…
- NOVASTAR v. SAFFRAN | MA Appeals Court Reverses APP. Division Decision and District Court Judgment “Present Holder, MERS, Ibanez Principles” H/T ForeclosureHamlet COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT NOVASTAR MORTGAGE, INC….
- MORGAN v. HSBC BANK USA | KY Appeals Court Reverses SJ “We note that the particular facts of this case, in particular the sequence of events that unfolded, is troubling” CHRISTOPHER MORGAN AND SHARON TAKVAM, Appellants, v. HSBC BANK USA,…
- AURORA LOAN SERVS., LLC v. LOUIS | Ohio: Court of Appeals “No demonstration that Aurora is the note holder, Chain of Title Deficit – Theodore Schultz Affidavit” 2012 Ohio 384 Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Appellee, v. Dion…
Leave a reply to U.S. Bank v. CONGRESS | Alabama Appeals Court Reverses Decision on Chain of Title Case, Ruling Hinges on Question of Bogus Allonges