Posts Tagged ‘allonge or endorsement’
Does The Mortgage Loan Trust Even Exist?
Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
I’ve been receiving and sharing excellent information and thoughts that have been shared with me by pro se litigants…there are some very bright people out there that are raising some very good questions. In most of my litigation cases, we’re still stuck trying to get the very basic information out of the Plaintiffs–haven’t even moved into substantive discovery in most cases.
On a percentage basis, something like 80% of my cases have failed at the MTD stage because the Plaintiffs are unable or unwilling to substantiate the most basic information. I anxiously await the far off time when we might plumb the real depths of the garbage filed in our courts to see what real mischief has been created….but read this below and think about what it means if this pro-se guy is correct. How many millions of dollars have been transferred into trusts that no one has any idea whatsoever who owns/controls or operates? Has there ever been a time in American jurisprudence where such massive amounts of wealth have been transferred with no evidentiary basis to support the transfers?
WHAT’S THE POINT OF COURTS AND LAWS AND STATUES AND RULES IF THEY’RE ALL
WANTONLY IGNORED?
In my case the alleged trust is identified in the complaint as being “Soundview Home Loan Trust 2005-OPT4″ (Sounview). In documents filed with the SEC Soundview holds itself out to be registered/incorporated in the state of Delaware, and this within numerous of the SEC documents. In the fall of 2008 I made a request to the Delaware SOS and received a statement from that office stating Soundview does not exist. I made another request in February of 2010 and received a similar statement which says, in pertinent part:
“…a thorough search of the statutory trust records…indicate the “Soundview Home Loan Trust 2005-OPT4″, is not the title of a Delaware statutory trust or foreign statutory trust. And I do hereby further certify that the records of this office fail to show that a statutory trust of the above title has ever filed a certificate of trust in this department.”
In addition to searching the Delaware SOS records I’ve also done an online search for same in New York (the most likely alternative state of registration/incorporation). New York currently has no record of Soundview.
I have reviewed the Delaware statutes relating to both domestic and foreign trusts. It appears, in my laymans interpretation, that all statutory trusts must be registered. Such is found in: http://delcode.delaware.gov/title12/c038/index.shtml
So it seems I have been sued by, not only a currently nonexistent entity, but a never existent entity. Is it possible for a non, or never, existent entity to maintain a lawsuit? Is there a requirement that MBS trusts must be registered?
I’ve wanted to make some hay out of this but have been unable to determine if there is any hay to be made. Can you shed some light on this for me?
In my case the fabricated assignment of mortgage alleges to convey from Option One directly to DBNT, as Trustee for Soundview. This A-D chain of title is impossible. There needs to be a chain of A-B-C-D. The note, on the other hand, now has an allonge, endorsed in blank (2 years after filing the complaint and proffering a note bearing no endorsement or allonge an allonge has now been fabricated). It could be argued that the note and mortgage have been bifurcated, the note becoming bearer paper and the mortgage being assigned to the ether. Given that assignments must be executed by the grantee, and the ether is… well, ethereal, it is not possible for the ether to grant anything. Ever. Has the debt in my case become unsecured?
I had previously stated that I’ve been unable to determine whether this alleged trust is required to incorporate/register anywhere. They’ve told the SEC they have done so in Delaware – the onshore-offshore tax haven. It was an attorney at the SEC that first introduced me to that deliciously oxymoronic phrase. She was not able to answer the question of trust registration. No attorney I’ve spoken with has studied the issue from this angle so I’ve gotten no definitive or expert opinion. I’m not an attorney. I don’t even play one on TV. I do, however, read and study constantly.
To me it reasons this way. People/humans exist by virtue of having a heartbeat, thinking, belching. Statutory trusts exist solely by a state granting them permission to exist. Telling the SEC, and investors, that a trust is a Delaware trust places a requirement that the trust actually be registered in Delaware.
A link to the SEC page for Soundview:
Foreclosure Case Killer!- An Allonge Is Not Admissable Evidence of Bank’s Ownership
Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
Across the country, banks are attaching “allonges” to original promissory notes, then using the attached allonge to allege their ownership of the note and their standing to foreclose.
The problem for the banks is an allonge is only supposed to be used when there is not sufficient blank space on the front or the back of the original note to stamp a “wet” endorsement on the face of that original document to transfer ownership from the lender whose name appears on the face of the note to the next holder of the note.
Attached here is a Motion to Dismiss I just filed which includes all the relevant research from across the United States that pertains to the use of allonges. It is fascinating to consider that allonges are being used perhaps millions of times across the country in support of bank’s efforts to foreclose on homes when the use of allonges in many of these cases may not be supported by the law or the facts of the case.
I publish this Motion and challenge attorneys, advocates, academics and any interested party to weigh in on the issue…if anyone can find proper legal justification for the widespread use (misuse) of allonges that currently exists in mortgage foreclosure cases, please send me information and correct me…having said that, I don’t expect that any contrary case law exists.
As we’ve learned from depositions taken of Angela Nolan (her full deposition here) and other Robo Signers, allonges are being produced by word processors and not signed by hand (as they are supposed to be). The original note is not even in possession of the party when the alleged allonge is created and the allonge is merely stapled or affixed at some later date. All of this violates the intent and purpose of original “wet” endorsements on the face of the documents which are intended to be a permanent record of a negotiable instrument’s chain of title.
Examine all documents carefully, and challenge the authenticity of everything….this issue is begging for an appellate court decision!
