Source: https://livingliesthetruth.com/2015/11/04/scotus-borrower-lacks-standing-to-challenge-psa-violations/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 06:16:42+00:00

Document:
Went to the Yvanova V. New Century Hearing Last week and not one mention about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the Tran case.
The decision is likely to come down in 90 days.
If it is reversed, then hopefully the lower courts would allow people to move forward on the mortgage fraud that was committed and that you all speak of.
Until then, it is basically a no go (in California at least).
I just asked two foreclosure attorneys (that don’t know each other) and they both stated this decision does not mean anything.
Basically, it depends on the state that you live on whether or not you have standing.
Most so-called “foreclosure defense” attorneys have no clue!
This denial applies nationwide, much to the chagrin of the scammers misleading homeowners with securitization arguments and audits based on that nonsense.
I am in California and a major case (Yvanova V. New Century Mortgage) is set for a hearing in front of the California Supreme Court on December 2, 2015.
I guess what would be the point of the hearing if this decision just came down and it would not depend on the state that you are in(?).
The California Supreme Court will put the permanent KIBOSH on the Glaski opinion, and on the nonsensical view that borrowers can justify breaching the note, or that they can avert foreclosure, by whining about wrongful assignment and securitization.
4. SUE the injurious lender team members.
Those needing a mortgage examination can call me at 727 669 5511.
Does that mean Massachusetts law that allows standing is out the window?
If that is the case, then why even bother with state foreclosure laws?
A bank uses state law to foreclose on the property.
If they do not like state law, and they are challenged on the standing issue based on state law, all they have to do (it seems like) is move the case to Federal Court and win.
That is what I am understanding.
Mr. Hurt, I understand what your are saying about Yvanova V. New Century Mortgage.
Glaski was the only case of its kind that was brought in front of the California Supreme Court and they refused to de-publish it.
If Glaski was full of flaws, why was it not de-published?
If you take a look at Yvanova and the other rulings chastising Glaski, it was all basically cut and paste as to their courts’ reasoning.
Further, if the California Supreme Court was going to put the “KIBOSH” on these late transfer cases, then why have they allowed other cases (most recently two weeks ago) to be put on hold pending Yvanova. (This makes a total of 6 including Yvanova).
Don’t get me wrong, I may end up eating my words because of the Tran decision. I don’t know.
But the Yvanova hearing will be in Los Angeles and I do plan to attend to get a feel of it.
Not only have the Ca. appellate courts laughed at Glaski, but the federal courts in Ca. have as well. Moreover, so have courts state and federal all over the country.
Then they would also be laughing at the California Supreme Court for refusing to de-publish it.
2.) They have since given Cert. to at least 5 other cases pending the decision on Yvanova.
On another note, if you or I were to break tax laws, what do you think would happen to us?
Even assuming, as Glaski insisted, that New York law governs interpretation of the PSA, which it did not because the PSA was under Delaware law, and further assuming that the transfer of Glaskis’ loan to the Trust violated the terms of the PSA, that after-the-deadline transactions would merely be voidable at the election of one or more of the parties—not void as Glaski and the scammers would have everyone believe. Consequently, Glaski, was not a party to the PSA, and did not have standing to challenge it.
Common sense would also dictate that if there are enormous numbers of late-delivered notes/mortgages, does anyone really believe that the holders of these notes/mortgages would rather lose the tax benefits by virtue of it becoming a taxable event, this highly unlikely because the IRS has failed to take any action so far, or lose the income from the notes/mortgages. Anyone who got out of the third grade can figure this one out, its not quantum physics.
1. The ONLY people who complain about that chain issue have become deadbeat borrowers who breached the note and want to find any cheap way possible to get out of paying the debt or losing the house to foreclosure. It really should bother you that MILLIONS of people try desperately to cheat the lenders out of their money.
2. The ONLY reliable method for beating the banking/lending machinery lies in following the method the banks use to come after borrowers: FIND the injuries, NEGOTIATE, Hire a Lawyer, then SUE. Why haven’t you focused on how to find those injuries when you know that between 75% and 90+% of borrowers suffered injuries by somebody involved in that loan? You are leaving diamonds in the rough lying around on the ground. Pick them up. FIND the INJURIES.
3. People who focus on chain of ownership statistically ALWAYS LOSE, and even the anomalous few who have gotten a temporary win end up wasting all that money on litigation because the right plaintiff comes back and attacks and wins the foreclosure. Any temporary victory is Pyrrhic because it costs a fortune, and the borrower is stuck with a house needing repairs and which the borrower has typically outgrown because of changes in family size during the the foreclosure fight (many have lost spouses over it).
I don’t mean to seem rude when I say you need to wake up and smell the coffee, get your head out of the clouds, etc, and FOCUS on WHAT MATTERS and WHAT WINS. Fighting the foreclosure, especially by whining about securitization, robosigning, and PSA violations, is, pardon the expression, STUPID.
Massachusetts courts gives standing and New York courts do not.
Does this mean it depends which state you are in?
Well, to begin with, the custom of precedence or stare decisis obliges courts to honor the opinions of their own court and those courts senior to it in the court hierarchy, and to consider advisory the opinions of coordinate courts. The 2nd Circuit includes NY, VT, and CT. So all the federal courts in those states should honor the Tran and Rajamin opinions of the 2nd Circuit. Furthermore, all other Circuits should honor them as advisory, most particularly because the SCOTUS denied cert in Tran, leaving that opinion in force.
I imagine any lawyer who wants to fly in the face of the Tran cert denial will have to face a gale of opposing jurisprudence. I do not know of any law requiring a state court to heed a federal court opinion in a state law matter. But I do know that the Governor and US President can send out armed operatives to enforce court rulings and enacted laws.
“Federal courts use a single approach for ascertaining state law in cases in which it applies: they decide issues of state law the way they think the state supreme court would decide them.4 State courts, by contrast, do not use a uniform approach for ascertaining federal law. Instead, they use a wide variety of approaches.
Massachusetts courts give standing? Show proof, please.
I was thinking about Ibanez when I wrote this part.
However, Tran pointed out the U.S. Supreme Court that there is a split in the districts.
Trust me when I say that I am with you on attacking the mortgage.
When we brought up the fact that the transfer caused a break in title, thus a break in Statute of Limitations, we were told that we had no standing.
In California, that is the problem with Attacking the Mortgage.
In our case, this judge refuses to even consider the fact that not only two appeals courts reversed on the type of loan that we have stating that it was designed to deceive (therefore the statute of limitations does not apply), but the fact that the state made it illegal.
There is no problem arguing mortgage attack in Ca. or anywhere else, the problem with the court case you cited was the homeowner committed bank fraud, that’s why she lost!
First and foremost, the main argument in Yvanova V. New Century (which the California Supreme Court is set to hear on 12-02-2015 on the issue of standing) is that CALIFORNIA LAW ALLOWS STANDING, not New York, Delaware or any other state’s laws.
As for the second part of your comment, I honestly do not even understand it.
But if you mean the investors (who have most likely already been paid off through insurance) can always ratify the transfers, fine, then, let them do it.
Then maybe there will not be an issue.
But until there is a ratification, it is void as far as I am concerned.
A void contract is “invalid or unlawful from its inception” and therefore cannot be enforced. 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 169. Thus, a mortgagor who was not a party to an assignment between mortgagees may nevertheless challenge the enforcement of a void assignment. A voidable contract, on the other hand, “is one where one or more of the parties have the power, by the manifestation of an election to do so, to avoid the legal relations created by the contract.” Id. Therefore, only one who was a party to a voidable contract has standing to challenge it.
It is true that New York Estate Powers & Trusts Law § 7-2.4 states: “every act in contravention of the Trust is void.” New York case law, however, makes clear “that section 7-2.4 is not applied literally in New York. “Bank, 981 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). Instead, New York courts have held that a beneficiary can ratify a trustee’s ultra vires act. See, e.g., Mooney v. Madden, 597 N.Y.S.2d 775 (N.Y. App. 1993) (holding that trustee may bind trust to an otherwise invalid act or agreement that is outside scope of trustee’s power when beneficiary or beneficiaries consent or ratify trustee’s ultra vires act or agreement); Matter of Estate of Janes, 630 N.Y.S.2d 472, 477 (Sur. 1995), aff’d as modified sub nom. Matter of Janes, 643 N.Y.S.2d 972 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996), aff’d sub nom. Matter of Estate of Janes, 90 N.Y.2d 41 (N.Y. 1997)(acknowledging that a beneficiary may ratify a trustee’s ultra vires act if “the ratification was done with knowledge of material facts”); Leasing Serv. Corp. v. Vita Italian Restaurant, 566 N.Y.S.2d 796, 797-98 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991) (“It is hornbook law that a contract entered into by . . . an unauthorized agent, corporate officer, trustee or other person purporting to act in a representative capacity . . . is voidable.”); Hine v. Huntington, 103 N.Y.S. 535, 540 (1907) (“We have before this called attention to the fact that the cestui que trust is at perfect liberty to elect to approve an unauthorized investment and enjoy its profits, or to reject it at his option.”); 106 N.Y. Jur. 2d Trusts § 431 (“[T]rustee may bind trust to an otherwise invalid act or agreement which is outside the scope of the trustee’s power when beneficiary consents to or ratifies the trustee’s ultra vires act or agreement.”); see also In re Levy, 893 N.Y.S.2d 142, 144 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010) (explaining that “[t]he essence of ratification ‘is that the beneficiary unequivocally declares that he does not regard the act in question as a breach of trust but rather elects to treat it as a lawful transaction under the trust'”) (quoting Bogert, Law of Trusts and Trustees § 942).
You need to stop listening to scammers hawking securitization audits and arguments!
If I had a dollar for the number of times I stated as much on LL (and got quite a bit of flack for), I’d be filthy rich by now. What is really troubling is that it is simply… contract 101 (first year of law school, mind you!) Something that all the self-proclaimed attorneys, who’ve been flirting with Garfield’s deluded elucubration for years, have used in pleadings, have been sanctioned and sometimes even disbarred over, knew or should have known.
I don’t fault pro-se for having swallowed and regurgitated it almost verbatim in their pleadings, to subsequently lose everything they owned after a doomed uphill battle they never had a clue they were wrongly and dishonestly induced into waging. I do, however, find it outrageous and unconscionable that this country, will all its ruled and regulations about everyone and everything, has not found it necessary to shield said desperate and gullible pro se from predators such as Garfield, who not only encouraged them to fight that losing battle but knowingly and intentionally mislead them, and shamefully profited from their ignorance by selling them expensive products which, once again, he knew or should have known were completely inadmissible on foreclosure defense.
If the BAR and courts have not -and will not- discipline their own dangerously rotten apples, this country is in a much worse dire straits than we can even imagine.
What is even more astounding is that so many so-called foreclosure-defense law firms have been posting and reposting Garfield ad nauseam. Obviously, law schools in this country have gone down in the same toilet as regulatory agencies, Congress, finance and banking!
The United States Supreme Court was asked to rule on a split in the First and Second Districts. (Massachusetts and New York Law).
My assumption would be whether or not a challenge can be made would depend on what state that you live in based on their denial.
Not sure if I am right or wrong, but what do you think?
The trust was set up using tax code established under the Federal Tax Code.
The tax code (whether one agrees with it or not) is set up for the benefit all the people living in this country.
So if the tax code is broken the way these trusts have been breaking it with the late assignments, then hurts everyone because the interest should be forfeited.
As for not being a party to the trust, that’s a good one. The home loan that one takes out makes you a party to the trust as your name is all over it.
But, let’s just say you are correct, you are not a party.
Then, in theory, all whistle blower lawsuits should be thrown out because, after all, the person that finds out how one, two, or more entities doing something wrong was never a party to the corruptness, and, in turn, had no legitimate reason for bringing a whistle blower action.
I will wait for your answer as to how I am wrong on your points.
Yes, I know the courts are say I am wrong, but it seems like Massachusetts got it right.
I see a problem in your logic. You base it on the BAD ASSUMPTIONS that the trust breaks the tax code that that the borrower became a party to the trust or PSA simply because the borrower note became one of the instruments in the trustee’s property. So you come to wrong conclusions.
The trust suffers certain consequences from not taking advantage of tax benefit opportunities. That does not mean the trustee broke the law. It just means the trustee pays higher taxes.
And you KNOW that the borrower never became a party to the PSA because the Supreme Court denied Certiorari in Tran, and because the 2nd Circuit and other Circuits, and numerous state courts have opined that the borrower is not a party, to injured by, or beneficiary of the PSA or assignment of the note.
If you disagree, why don’t you file a Qui Tam action and propound your facts and logic to the court?
Mr. Hurt, the fact that the trusts broke the law is not an assumption but a fact. Even bank attorneys admit that.
As far as the buyer goes, he became part of the trust when he/she signed the loan docs.
Another example when in (I believe in 2011), a California attorney requested a hearing on MERS and the U.S. Supreme Court denied Cert.
For Yvanova to see how the California Supreme Court rules.
It’s a major problem if there is a statute of limitations issue.
That’s why we need to show that we have standing in the break of title.
There’s a way to overcome SOL, and there are always more than several issues in these mortgage transactions to attack!
Previous Previous post: Should TILA Rescission Tender Become a Condition of Lien Removal?

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 § 169
 § 7
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 431
 § 942