BY ‘NANCY DREW”
In California, OR, WA, CO (non judicial states) place an Automatic Stay one must file Bankruptcy “BK” which stops notice of defaults?
sadly allowing substitute trustee to act as robo-mill and includes bank attorneys who don’t have to reveal ‘security’ the mortgage note as collateral attached.
‘substitute’ trustees file falsified documents as does the documented LPS/DOCX employees, just the employee may be a contractor such as Aztec Foreclosure Corp.
The falsified documents as required by the BK courts excludes the same transactions in judicial states just the ‘Trustee’ and Substitute Trustee don’t have to disclose the ‘name of the loan trust, trust fund, certificates, the ‘mortgage note’ as collateral attached inside and sliced and diced when sold to FREDDIE MAC and others Institutional Investors.
You are forced to fight harder under COTA and Accounting GAAP to reveal what is not recorded with county recorder. You are forced to fight pro pe and when 90 days in default of any amount, the SERVICER of the asset as a receivable – advances funds and tracks the debt they will claim when they liquidate your mortgage.
You are fighting with the ‘Servicer’ who has to advance funding to the ‘Master Servicer’ get it! The party before BK does not have legal standing and the CA Courts ignore? WHY?
Aztec Foreclosure Corp
Aztec Foreclosure Corporation is a full service foreclosure trustee concentrating its practice in the representation of mortgage lenders and other financial institutions in foreclosure of residential real estate collateral in the States of California and Nevada.
Aztec Foreclosure Corporation of Washington is a full service foreclosure trustee serving the State of Washington.
Who is Robbie Weaver Office Manager in CA and Elaine Malone Foreclosure Supervisor? Who is the ‘attorney’ providign due dilligence? Kelly D. Sutherland ‘Managing Attorney’ in state of Washington? Is she licensed to practice in CA?
Look at the 21 Pages of Completed RESALES of Properties!
Please take NOTICE that
THe ‘LIST’ 21 pages of sales REPORT generated by data extracted from databases in which somebody programmed the appearance of the data in a report form all CREATED BY A COMPUTER
A LIST OF ‘COMPUTER GENERATED SALES’ ALL PURCHASED AT THE ‘OPENING BID’ WERE THE HIGHEST BID’
WHO WAS AT THE SALE? WHAT ‘TRUSTEE’ SIGNED C/O …. generated 8/12/2011 @ 3:00:50 PM
Report Date 8/12/2011 (Note the report is generated bya computer from database) organized by Case#, Sale Date, Property Address, Bids in which then the ‘security’ identified. Get that information while you are in BK!
http :// www . aztectrustee . com / Reports / CAZ_WebCompSalesRpt . pdf
Aztec Foreclosure Corporation | Professional Foreclosure Trustee Serving California and Nevada
Aztec Foreclosure Corporation of Washington (Washington State only)
Aztec Foreclosure Corporation has the necessary experience working with lenders to protect their delinquent mortgage assets. Our tenured staff has assisted lenders in their default management department, providing unique insight and an ability to better communicate with our clients. Our knowledge and experience extends beyond the routine foreclosure process into the daily operations of the default management industry. Aztec Foreclosure Corporation of Washington provides the same services in the State of Washington.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA:
Notice of Default – State of California
Upon receipt of the foreclosure referral package, the Notice of Default (“NOD”) is prepared and forwarded to the title company for recording along with the executed Declaration from the lender. Recoding of the NOD constitutes ‘first legal’ when recorded. Once recorded, a copy of the NOD and Declaration will be mailed to all parties to the Deed of Trust and parties having recorded a request for notice.
A Trustee Sale Guarantee (“TSG”) will be ordered from the title company and reviewed upon receipt that will disclose all parties entitled to notice, as well as any other encumbrances recorded against the Deed of Trust and reviewed for any possible defects which may exist that would prevent continuation of foreclosure. The one-month mailing notices are sent to any parties requiring notice.
Notice of Sale
A Notice of Sale (NOTS) will be recorded in the appropriate county and all parties requiring notice will be sent certified and regular mailings of the upcoming foreclosure sale date. The NOTS will be published for three successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation for the city and county the property is located. A copy of the NOTS will be posted on the property itself and recorded in the county recorder’s office. The sale will be conducted at the time and place set forth on the NOTS.
Bidding instructions will be requested from the client and should be submitted to our office no later than 5 days before the scheduled sale date. Aztec will bid according to the client’s instructions. If there are no competitive bidders, the interest of the property will revert to the beneficiary. Third party bidders must outbid the beneficiary to obtain the property, and the sale proceeds are distributed in the order of priority, with the beneficiary being satisfied first.
The sale may be postponed pursuant to the client’s instructions without an additional publication. The sale may be postponed up to a maximum of 365 days after the original sale date. After that a new publication will have to be set with a new sale date, mailings, etc.
Redemption
There is a 3 month redemption period that must run from when the NOD is recorded before a foreclosure sale can be set. Effective June, 2009, CA implemented the CA Foreclosure Prevention Act which required an additional 90 days of redemption:
On February 20, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger signed ABX2 7 and SBX2 7, which establish the California Foreclosure Prevention Act. The California Foreclosure Prevention Act modifies the foreclosure process to provide additional time for borrowers to work out loan modifications while providing an exemption for mortgage loan servicers that have implemented a comprehensive loan modification program. Civil Code Section 2923.52 requires an additional 90 day period beyond the period already provided before a Notice of Sale can be given in order to allow all parties to pursue a loan modification to prevent foreclosure of loans meeting certain criteria identified in that section.
A mortgage loan servicer who has implemented a comprehensive loan modification program may file an application for exemption from the provisions of Civil Code Section 2923.52. Approval of this application provides the mortgage loan servicer an exemption from the additional 90-day period before filing the Notice of Sale when foreclosing on real property as designated by this Section.
Upon expiration of redemption, sale, publication and posting dates will be set. The sale cannot be held until the expiration of 21 days from redemption.
Sale
The sale will be conducted at the time and place set forth on the NOTS. Aztec will bid according to the client’s instructions. If there are no competitive bidders, the interest of the property will revert to the beneficiary. Third party bidders must outbid the beneficiary to obtain the property, and the sale proceeds are distributed in the order of priority, with the beneficiary being satisfied first.
The sale may be postponed pursuant to the client’s instructions without an additional publication. The sale may be postponed up to three times at the request of the beneficiary, after which it will be necessary to republish a new sale date.
Conveyance & Final Title
After the foreclosure sale is conducted, a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale is issued by Aztec conveying title to the successful bidder. If the property reverts to the beneficiary, it is sent for recording within a few days of the sale. If a third-party purchases the property, the unrecorded Trustee’s Deed will be sent to the address specified by that party.
If the property is to be conveyed to the Secretary of Housing & Urban Development (“HUD”) or Secretary of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), a Grant Deed from the beneficiary to the agency is sent to the client for execution prior to the sale.
After receipt of the Grant Deed, if it is a VA loan, the deed is sent for recording immediately. Aztec will order a title policy and forward it to VA within their required time line. If it is a HUD loan, Aztec will await instructions to record the deed to HUD. Prior to the deed recording, Aztec will obtain tax and lien information to verify if title is clear before recording the HUD deed. When all taxes and liens are cleared, with the client’s instructions, the deed is recorded. Once recorded, the title policy is obtained and forwarded to HUD within their required time line. The clients are given copies of the title polices and recorded deeds.
The only post-sale right of redemption occurs when an IRS tax lien is recorded against the property. Once the sale is held, the lien is extinguished, but the IRS retains a 120-day right of redemption. During this time frame, the IRS has the right to purchase the property.
Reinstatement and Payoff
The trustors, owners and junior lienholders have a statutory right to reinstate the loan up to five business days prior to the sale. The beneficiary may waive the five-day limit and accept reinstatement at any time prior to the sale. Reinstatement must be tendered in the amount of all sums due the lender plus all foreclosure fees, costs and any attorney’s fees and costs incurred.
Deficiency Judgment – State of California
The right to a deficiency judgment following the foreclosure sale is limited by anti-deficiency legislation. Under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 508b, there can be no deficiency judgment on foreclosure of a purchase-money mortgage or trust deed. Also, under Section 580d, one cannot seek a deficiency after a non-judicial foreclosure sale.
The anti-deficiency rule does make a distinction between vendors and third-party lenders. The vendor is precluded from seeking a deficiency judgment where his loan secures payment of the balance of the purchase price of real property. In respect to a third-party lender, the anti-deficiency rule applies only to a dwelling of not more than four families given to secure repayment of a loan that was used to pay all or part of the purchase price of such dwelling occupied entirely or in part by the purchaser.
Deficiency judgments may be obtained if the obligation is not subject to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 580. These cases are outside the scope of this synopsis.
Eviction – State of California
The eviction process is initiated by serving the owners/trustors with a three-day Notice to Quit. All other occupants must be given a sixty-day Notice to Quit.
After the 3/60 day period has expired and if the property is still occupied, a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer is filed. The summons and complaint are sent for service upon all defendants. The requisite personal or substitute service of process may take up to two weeks. In cases where service cannot be effectuated, application is made to the court for permission to serve by posting and mailing the summons and complaint to the property.
Defendants have five days to answer the complaint after service, plus ten extra days if service was made by substitute service or posting and mailing. If the defendants do not respond timely, a default judgment is entered. If defendants file an answer and contest the action, a motion for summary judgment is filed and usually granted within two weeks. In those infrequent cases in which summary judgment is not granted, a trial date is requested. A judgment and writ for possession are submitted to the court within 48 hours of a trial, granting a motion for summary judgment or a default judgment is entered. The court is requested to forward the writ to the marshals for posting on the property. Processing of the writ and posting take approximately two weeks.
The defendants have five days to vacate after posting of the writ. The marshal then returns to the property to physically remove the occupants. The servicer must arrange to have a representative present to take possession and secure the property. The majority of eviction cases that are former owner occupied are completed within 60 to 75 days.
SEE AZTEC FORECLOSURE ‘TRUSTEE’
SAME DETAILS ABOVE FOR NEVADA,
AND SAME DETAILs ABOVE FOR ‘WASHINGTON STATE ONLY’
Washington Staff:
Image via Wikipedia
party who owns the deed of trust. If that party is A, then B may certainly not assign it to itself. And if it’s A, and someone alleges to sign it for A to B, still that authorization to do so must exist. It is relevant who the signor works for, but the real problem is that with robosignors, they are working for party B to assign party A’s deed of trust to party B.
And of course, robo-signors have no knowledge of the factual basis of a dang thing. They don’t have a clue who is the proper party to
execute an assignment of a dot. That holds true for these yeahoo
alleged appointees of MERS, the enabler of the loss of those things held most dear by Americans….the enabler of the state of our economy, the enabler of criminality. I better quit.
legitimacy. Actually, there needn’t be. I think the failure is to make the right arguments. So look at the attack necessary:
where is the alleged agent status of MERS – where is it written, literally, that MERS has any relationship (agent whatever the heck) with the current ‘lender’/beneficiary/mortgageee (these misusea of these words is all so heinous, and the legislators allowed it)? Yeah, the dot says “its successors and or assigns”. Well, okay, slick. Show us that first of all the new guy IS a successor or assign. What would it take to show this? Ths may vary between lien theory and title-theory states.
I can’t speak readily to lien-theory, but in title-theory states, it would require a complete chain of title, which necessary must include written assignments to everyone in the act along the way. Unless those
necessary written assignments each and every re-appointed MERS
as nominee, MERS is outie and no longer can even purport to assign a deed of trust , regardless of the schmoe really doing so in MERS’
name.
The relationship of a party to a deed of trust necessary to execute an assignment can never be assumed, nor the relationship of the parties to MERS.
That relationship may exist, but as the record stands, there simply is no evidence. I acknowledge that the original deed of trust states that MERS will be the nominee for the original lender’s successors and or assigns, but the record produces no evidence the current claimant is the successor or assign of the original lender.
Even with such findings in the claimant’s favor after any award by this court of time to the bankster to produce this evidence, the record shows no evidence the person executing the assignment in MERS’ name is authorized to execute the assignment in MERS’ name. MERS itself has no employees, and on information and belief, Mr. Peters is an employee of chop-shop A or the claimant, Joe Bankster #3409 (pick one). That authority may exist, but as the record stands, there is no evidence that it does.
A long established maxim of law is that a party may not be deprived of real property without due process. Due process is a constitutionally protected right. To avoid the facts necessary to establish the parties rights would be a violation of that due process. “
patrick killemquick, an employee of Joe Bankster # 3409, as alleged straw officer/nominee of MERS, itself as alleged-but-no proof-agent of unknown Party A, who is not the original beneficiary named in the deed of trust, but is alleged (which is enough for me) to be a successor in interest or assignee of the original beneficiary if only by an agreement similarly unknown and unverified and additionally with no evidence any of the parties referenced herein are even MERS’ members, or if they were ever shown to be, that this assignment comports with MERS’ rules of membership regarding assignments by members in MERS’ name.
There may be several unrecorded intervening assignments of this deed of trust, such as an unrecorded assignment to a securitized trust / trustee called for in the psa relevant to this deed of trust, which would nullify this assignment in that it lacks factual basis, but discovery was not done nor was this information tendered pursuant to any rules including rule 26, so it doesn’t really matter. In recognition of this recently discovered information by the public, my employer Joe Bankster may be a debt collection outfit who is more willing to
worry about these issues than Joe Bankster 3407 who had actually settled all his alleged beefs relevant to this deed of trust, IF any, anyway.
Disclaimer: I have no actual knowledge of the factual basis for this assignment. As an employee of Joe Bankster #3409, it is not in my job description.
Some title company will insure over all this because the homeowner doesn’t have the savvy or money to say jack.
Get the loislaw account! In search terms, just enter those statutes.
You could try , of course . searching those terms at google /yahoo and see what pops up.
“In re Koontz”., about which I am downright thrilled. I have been yelling about this for a long time now. The court said the assignment by a bankster employee wearng a MERS’ straw-officer hat was garbage. Straw-officer was employee of bankster, not employee of MERS – MERS has no employees, to start with. Search for Koontz; if you can’t find it, I’ll post it.
These bs assignments are “self’assignment” and are in my
opinion additionally fraudulent. And btw, MERS’ actual bs membership agreement with its members states that the only time a member (read: “member/servicer-employee-wearing MERS’-straw-officer-hat”) may even do a bs assignment in its name (did you get that – “do an assignment in its name”?) is to a non-MERS’ member, which additionally calls for the loan to be de-activated from the MERS database and the assignment recorded to the non-member in the county land records. At the risk of sounding like whatever, as to this , I say “Hear ye! Hear ye!”
Someone argued to me that the straw officer at the servicer is the nominee of MERS, so it;s okay. Bs. It’s not okay. MERS is the alleged nominee or agent (pick one) of its principal, the beneficiary. Let’s pick agent for this.
Mers is the ALLEGED agent of A, whose identity is unknown, with no evidence of that relationship with party unknown A. The thing we do know is that party A is no longer the party named in the deed of trust as the lender. If it were, it might be one thing, but it isnt’, Mers appoints a straw officer at B’s as its own nominee in MERS’ alleged capacity of agent for party unknown with no apparent authority as agent for unknown party A. So now we’ve got MERS, with no apparent authority of its own to represent unknown party A, purporting to appoint a member-servicer’s employee as MERS’ nominee to execute an assignment for unknown party A to the member-servicer, that is, to itself, the real employer of this alleged
MERS’ nominee.
The Koontz court said “Not” because the straw officer was not an
employee of MERS. The Koontz court did not reach the other considerations here. It was enough for that judge that the staw officer was not an employee of MERS. He said the assignment was invalid, and he may even have gone on to call it the sham it is.
2) Which assignment happens first: to the trustee then the trust? or to the trust then the trustee?
Read more at http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2011/07/21/bondi-poor-performance-not-politics-led-to-ouster-of-robo-signing-investigators-lps-contributions/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ForeclosureFraudByDinsfla+%28FORECLOSURE+FRAUD+%7C+by+DinSFLA%29
Has Wells Fargo had to repurchase any non performing mortgages back from the trust at Bank of New York? If Wells did repurchase bad loans, how does that work mechanically speaking, does the loan get cleaved off of the REMIC or does Wells pay off the trustee with a one time payment or just take over the non performing loan payments to the trustee until the dust settles?
If Wells does repurchase the non performing loan, do they now own the mortgage again giving them more leverage in foreclosure or is the mortgage left in the REMIC under the trustee in any event?
I am also under the impression that the mortgages inside the REMIC are insured, is that true?
Thanks for your time Neil,
Jack
davidwood100@yahoo.com