Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/51088296/appellate-nccourts-w
Timestamp: 2016-10-27 11:35:43
Document Index: 404886501

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 45', '§ 45', '§ 45', '§ 45', '§ 45', '§ 45']

appellate.nccourts w
BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Musicappellate.nccourts wUploaded by DinSFLADeedDeed Of Trust (Real Estate)Trust LawMortgage LawForeclosure899 viewsDownloadEmbedSee MoreCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentNO.COA10-1002 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 March 2011
2010 by Judge J. Carlton Cole in Dare County Superior Court. in the Court of Appeals 10 February 2011.
Appeal by respondent Eloise Hall from order entered 29 March Heard
Eloise Hall (“respondent-appellant”) appeals from an order entered by the trial court authorizing a substitute trustee to proceed with foreclosure on her property pursuant to the terms of
a deed of trust held by the Bank of Currituck. I. Background
Oliver & Friesen, PLLC, by Jonathan E. Friesen, for Eloise Hall respondent appellant.
Construction Co., Inc. (“OBC”), executed a promissory note in favor
of the Bank of Currituck (the “Bank”) in the principal amount of $550,000 with a maturity date of 18 April 2008 (the “2007 Note”).
On 19 April 2007, Matthew Hall, President of Outer Banks
Dare County No. 09-SP-856 We reverse.
-2The purpose of the 2007 Note was to provide a back-up letter of
of a construction project. 65257145.”
The 2007 Note was labeled “Loan Number
Subsequently, on 2 October 2007, respondent-appellant, mother of Matthew Hall, executed a North Carolina Future Advance Deed of Trust (the “Deed of Trust”) to the Trustee for the Bank, which was recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of Dare County on 4 October 2007. The Deed of Trust contained the following
The Deed of Trust further provided that the “loan documents” secured by the Deed of Trust included: [A] Promissory Note, issued by [the Bank] dated February 15th, 2007 in the face amount of $150,000 and modified and reduced to $80,000 on July 26th, 2007 and an Irrevocable Letter of Credit issued by [the Bank] dated April 19th, 2007 in the aggregate face amount of up to $550,000, and a Back up Line of Credit Facility dated April 19th, 2007 in the face amount of up to $500,000 executed by Matthew F. Hall President as [sic] Outer Banks Construction Co[.] Incorporated[.]
The Deed of Trust provisions made no reference to securing any
renewals, modifications, or extensions of the obligations listed. At the time the Deed of Trust was executed, the present obligation
credit on which OBC’s bonding company could draw for the building
-3secured totaled zero, as reflected on the face of the Deed of
also executed future . . . or
Hypothecation Agreement.
The terms of the Hypothecation Agreement
authorized “Matthew Hall President Outer Banks Construction Co. Inc.” to hypothecate or pledge as collateral certain property of Eloise Hall to secure “any present or indebtedness, any
extension, modification or renewal thereof, the undersigned [Eloise Hall] hereby consenting to the extension or renewal . . . and waiving any notice of any such extension, modification or renewal.” As of 18 April 2008, the maturity date on the 2007 Note, OBC’s
Therefore, on 19 April 2008, Matthew Hall executed a new promissory
2008 Note was labeled “Renewal of 65257145.” In August 2008, OBC’s bonding company began making draws on the letter of credit. No payments were made on the 2008 Note, and OBC defaulted. The Substitute Trustee commenced this action upon filing a Notice of Hearing on Foreclosure of Deed of Trust on behalf of the
of Superior Court of Dare County on 15 January 2010. The Clerk entered an order authorizing the Substitute Trustee to proceed with foreclosure under the terms of the Deed of Trust. Pursuant to
statute, the order made the following findings of fact: 1. That The Bank of Currituck is the holder and owner of the [2008 Note], . . . and
Bank on 5 October 2009.
note in the principal amount of $550,000 (the “2008 Note”). The
A hearing was conducted before the Clerk
bonding company had made no demands on the letter of credit.
-4the balance and amounts due on [the 2008 Note] constitutes a valid debt owed by Outer Banks Construction Co., Inc. to The Bank of Currituck.
2. That the debtor, Outer Banks Construction Co., Inc., is in default under the [2008 Note] and the deed of trust . . . securing the debt which is identified and referred to hereinabove. 3. That said debt owed by Outer Banks Construction Co., Inc. to The Bank of Currituck is secured by [the Deed of Trust] . . . pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Hypothecation Agreement . . . . 4. That, under the terms and provisions of the deed of trust, the Substitute Trustee has the authority to foreclose under the power of sale set forth in the deed of trust.
On 25 January 2010, respondent-appellant filed notice of appeal with the Clerk of Superior Court of Dare County. On 5 March 2010, At
a hearing was conducted in the Superior Court of Dare County.
the hearing, the trial court considered the documents involved and heard the testimony of Mr. Lee Wilson, credit administrator for the
parties that the 2008 Note was merely an extension of the 2007 Note
for an additional year because of construction delays on the project for which the 2007 Note was issued and that the Deed of Trust would continue to secure the renewal. However, Mr. Wilson acknowledged
Mr. Wilson testified that it was the understanding of the
-5that he was not present at the time of the signing of the 2008 Note.
findings of fact made by the Clerk of Court and authorizing the Substitute Trustee to proceed with foreclosure under the terms of the Deed of Trust. Respondent-appellant appeals. II. Standard of Review
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 45-21.16 (2009) provides that a mortgagee who seeks to exercise a power of sale under a deed of trust may do so only upon proper notice to all interested parties and only after a hearing before the clerk of superior court.
appeal from the clerk’s findings to the superior court. Stat. § 45-21.16(d1).
The superior court, like the clerk of court,
out in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 45-21.16(d): [T]he trial court in the appeal of a foreclosure action is to conduct a de novo hearing to determine the same four issues determined by the clerk of court: (1) the existence of a valid debt of which the party seeking foreclosure is the holder, (2) the existence of default, (3) the trustee’s right to foreclose under the instrument, and (4) the sufficiency of notice of hearing to the record owners of the property. In re Foreclosure of Azalea Garden Bd. & Care, Inc., 140 N.C. App. 45, 49-50, 535 S.E.2d 388, 392 (2000) (citing In re Foreclosure of
the trial court sits without a jury, is whether competent evidence exists to support the trial court’s findings of fact and whether the conclusions reached were proper in light of the findings.” Id. at
Goforth Properties, Inc., 334 N.C. 369, 374, 432 S.E.2d 855, 858 “The applicable standard of review on appeal where . . .
is limited in its review to determination of four factual issues set
On 29 March 2010, the trial court entered an order affirming the
Any party may N.C. Gen.
-650, 535 S.E.2d at 392 (citing Walker v. First Federal Savings and
denied, 325 N.C. 320, 381 S.E.2d 791 (1989)). III. Respondent-appellant Discussion error
findings of fact that the 2008 Note is secured by the Deed of Trust and that such Deed of Trust secures the 2008 Note pursuant to the terms of the Hypothecation Agreement. Respondent-appellant contends that neither the terms of the Hypothecation Agreement nor the provisions of the Deed of Trust extend her property as collateral to secure the debt incurred under the 2008 Note. We agree.
To be a valid lien on real property, North Carolina law
Putnam v. Ferguson, 130 N.C. App. 95, 98, 502 S.E.2d 386,
431 S.E.2d 549, 550 (1993); see also In re Head Grading Co., Inc., 353 B.R. 122, 123 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2006) (“North Carolina law requires deeds of trust to specifically identify the debt referenced therein.”). In the present case, the Deed of Trust very
specifically describes the obligation secured as including: [A] Promissory Note, issued by [the Bank] dated February 15th, 2007 in the face amount of $150,000 and modified and reduced to $80,000 on July 26th, 2007 and an Irrevocable Letter of Credit issued by [the Bank] dated April 19th, 2007 in the aggregate face amount of up to $550,000, and a Back up Line of Credit Facility dated April 19th, 2007 in the face amount of up to $500,000 executed by Matthew F. Hall President as [sic] Outer Banks Construction Co[.] Incorporated . . . .
388 (1998); In re Foreclosure of Enderle, 110 N.C. App. 773, 775,
requires a deed of trust to specifically identify the obligation it
Loan, 93 N.C. App. 528, 532, 378 S.E.2d 583, 585, disc. review
-7(Emphasis added.) the 2007 Note. Therefore, the Deed of Trust explicitly secures
In addition, our Supreme Court has held that a deed of trust executed as security for a debt will secure all renewals of the debt unless a different intent appears. Wachovia Nat’l Bank v. Ireland,
122 N.C. 571, 574, 29 S.E. 835, 835 (1898) (“The deed contains a covenant that the charge shall be binding for all renewals of the debts specified. This would be so without any agreement, unless a Although more than a hundred years
different intent appeared.”).
old, this holding has never been overturned and still serves as controlling precedent in North Carolina today. See In re Blevins,
255 B.R. 680, 684 (W.D.N.C. 2000) (affirming Bankruptcy Court’s
executed as a renewal does not cancel the original promissory note
promissory note). Our Supreme Court has further held, “Where a note is given merely in renewal of another note and not in payment thereof, the effect is to extend the time for the payment of the debt without extinguishing or changing the character of the
obligation[.]” (1935).
operates as an extension of time for payment and will continue to be secured by a deed of trust that secures the original debt, unless a contrary intent appears.
2008 Note, in addition to the 2007 Note, is secured by the Deed of
In the present case, respondent-appellant disputes that the
Accordingly, a promissory note executed as a renewal only
Dyer v. Bray, 208 N.C. 248, 248, 180 S.E. 83, 83
or the deed of trust securing the debt incurred under the original
holding that, under North Carolina contract law, a promissory note
-8Trust. The face of the 2008 Note specifically states that it is a
number of the 2007 Note. Therefore, the documents indicate the fact that the 2008 Note was issued as a renewal of the 2007 Note, and because a renewal note is not intended to extinguish the original obligation, the Deed of Trust that encompasses the original 2007 Note also secures the new 2008 Note, unless a contrary intent appears. The Bank maintains that the Deed of Trust “evinces the
intent” that the Deed of Trust secures the 2008 Note based simply on the fact that the 2008 Note is a renewal of the 2007 Note. However, counter to the Bank’s assertion, the terms of the Deed of Trust do in fact reflect the contrary intent that the debts incurred
On the face of the Deed of Trust appears the following future
General Statutes addresses “Instruments to Secure Future Advances and Future Obligations.” (2009). N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 45-67 through –79
The future advances clause in the Deed of Trust is
Article 7 of Chapter 45 of the North Carolina
advances clause:
under the 2008 Note are not secured under the Deed of Trust.
“renewal of” loan number “65257145.”
This loan number is the loan
-9consistent with the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 45-68(1) (2007)
which instructs that a security instrument, including a deed of trust, shall secure future advances and future obligations so as to give priority so long as certain criteria are stated in the security instrument. Id. Notably, one term that must be stated in a deed
of trust is: “The period within which future obligations may be incurred, which period shall not extend more than 15 years beyond the date of the security instrument . . . .” Id. Therefore, in
anticipation of any extensions or renewals, the Bank could have secured priority for future advances or future obligations for up to fifteen years pursuant to the terms of the statute in effect at
period for which future advances “are to be made and secured
Deed of Trust evinces the intent to limit the extent to which the Deed of Trust secures future advances to only those made prior to 18 April 2008.
Furthermore, our courts adhere to the central principle of contract interpretation that “‘[t]he various terms of the [contract]
every provision is to be given effect.’”
are to be harmoniously construed, and if possible, every word and Duke Energy Corp. v.
Malcolm, 178 N.C. App. 62, 65, 630 S.E.2d 693, 695 (2006) (quoting Gaston County Dyeing Machine Co. v. Northfield Ins. Co., 351 N.C.
293, 299-300, 524 S.E.2d 558, 563 (2000)); see also In re Den-Mark Const., Inc., 398 B.R. 842, 850 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2008) (“Contract
hereunder” to the period expiring on 18 April 2008.
However, the Deed of Trust expressly limits the time
(amended 2009) in effect at the time the Deed of Trust was executed,
-10interpretation in North Carolina must favor an interpretation of a
does not.”).
“It is a well-settled principle of legal
construction that it must be presumed the parties intended what the language used clearly expresses, and the contract must be construed to mean what on its face it purports to mean.” Self-Help Ventures
Fund v. Custom Finish, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 682 S.E.2d 746, 749 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Moreover, all contemporaneously executed written instruments between the parties, relating to the subject matter of the contract, are to be construed together in determining what was undertaken.” Id.
contains references to the other, the documents are to be considered
determine the intent of the parties.”
as one instrument and are to be read and construed as such to In re Foreclosure of Sutton
Investments, 46 N.C. App. 654, 659, 266 S.E.2d 686, 689 (1980). In the present case, respondent-appellant executed two
documents contemporaneously on 2 October 2007: the Deed of Trust and the Hypothecation Agreement. Respondent-appellant contends that the
trial court erred in finding that the Deed of Trust secures the 2008 to the terms of Hypothecation Agreement.
Respondent-appellant argues that in construing the Deed of Trust and the Hypothecation Agreement together, the intent of the parties was
to limit the period in which advances could be made and secured
note and a deed of trust are executed simultaneously and each
contract that gives meaning to every clause over an interpretation
“Thus, where a
-11under the Deed of Trust. We find respondent-appellant’s argument
to pledge the property of respondent-appellant for any present or
of those obligations.
Trust, on the other hand, made no provision for extensions or renewals of the specified obligations and expressly limited both the amount that the Deed of Trust would secure, as well as the period within which advances could be made and secured. Further, the Deed
obligation secured thereunder was 18 April 2008, the same maturity date
expressly stated the final date for payment of the
future obligations to the Bank, including any extensions or renewals The future advances provision in the Deed of
The language of the Hypothecation Agreement thereby authorized OBC
instruments reveal that respondent-appellant provided OBC with the
authority to pledge her property as security for any renewals or extensions on the obligations, but limited the initial time period
particularly persuasive under the facts of this case.
-12during which any advances would be secured by that property to the
McNeary’s
Capital Group, 103 N.C. App. 650, 406 S.E.2d 644 (1991) in support of her contention that the future advances time limitation stated in the Deed of Trust must control. In McNeary’s Arborists, the deed of trust at issue explicitly stated that “the period within which future obligations may be incurred hereunder expires March 3, 1988.” Id. at 651, 406 S.E.2d at 645. Subsequently, on 10 June 1988, the
parties modified the terms of the deed of trust to extend the time period within which future advances may be made. Id. However, this Court found that any obligations incurred in the interim period
intervening mechanic’s lien filed against the subject property
“Under the explicit terms of [the lender’s] deed of trust, the period within which Carley’s future obligations could be incurred expired on 3 March 1988.” Id. at 652, 406 S.E.2d at 645.
Accordingly, we agree with respondent-appellant’s contention that the express time limitation for future advances contained in the
terms of the Deed of Trust controls and evinces the intent of the that the property of respondent-appellant pledged as
collateral was meant to secure only those advances made prior to 18 April 2008.
is a renewal of the 2007 Note, any advances made under the 2008 Note
Alternatively, the Bank contends that, because the 2008 Note
pledged as collateral under the deed of trust.
between 3 March and 10 June 1988 did not have seniority over an
Arborists v.
period ending 18 April 2008.
-13should not be considered an advance made after the expiration of the
The only case applying North Carolina law on which
the Bank relies for its contention is In re Blevins, 255 B.R. 680 (W.D.N.C. 2000). In Blevins, the debtors both applied for and Id. at 682.
received two loans from the lender in December 1992.
Both loans were secured by deeds of trust pledging certain real property of the debtor as collateral. Id. The original promissory
notes specifically provided that the debtor would continue to be obligated to pay the loans, “even if the loans were renewed or extended.” Id. When the 1992 Notes became due one year later, the
debtor was unable or unwilling to pay the amounts owed on the notes
allowed the debtor to extend the loans for an additional year
executed renewal promissory notes on the 1992 Notes in 1993, 1994, and 1995.
Carolina contract law, held that the renewal notes executed by the debtor in 1993, 1994, and 1995 “were merely extensions of the 1992 Promissory Notes and therefore did not cancel the 1992 Notes or the
Unlike the facts in Blevins, in the present case no amounts were owed at the time of the original maturity date of the 2007 Note, which was 18 April 2008. The renewal notes in Blevins
extended the time for payment on amounts already advanced and owed under the original note for which the deed of trust was executed.
1992 Deeds of Trust executed by the Debtor.”
pursuant to a renewal note.
at that time, and instead of foreclosing on the notes, the lender
The bankruptcy court, applying North
future advances period, but rather should be considered as the
-14However, in the present case, the 2008 Note, despite being labeled
payment, as no debt was owed under the original 2007 Note which the Deed of Trust secured. Had the amounts been advanced under the
original 2007 Note and renewed under the 2008 Note, as in Blevins, then the advances would have been made prior to the 18 April 2008 expiration date and would have been secured by the Deed of Trust. Such is not the case here. Additionally, the North Carolina
Ireland, 122 N.C. 571, 29 S.E. 835, which established the rule regarding renewals on which the Bank relies, is also distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In Ireland, the deed of trust
collateral specified.”
at issue contained an express covenant that the property pledged as for all renewals of the debts
case, the Deed of Trust made no covenants for renewals. Rather, the Deed of Trust expressed a clear intent to limit the initial period for which the collateral would be pledged as security to cover advances made before 18 April 2008. Lastly, this result is compelled by the “well[-]settled”
be exercised in strict conformity with the terms of the instrument.” Sutton Investments, 46 N.C. App. at 659, 266 S.E.2d at 688.
principle “that a power of sale contained in a deed of trust must
Id. at 574, 29 S.E. at 835.
language in a separate instrument is contradictory, “language in a
deed of trust expressly limiting the exercise will govern.” 659, 266 S.E.2d at 689.
a “renewal” of the 2007 Note, was not an extension of time for
However, in the present
-15In the present case, the Deed of Trust expressly limits the
to 18 April 2008.
The facts before the trial court unequivocally
established that all advances made to OBC were under the 2008 Note and were made after the 18 April 2008 date. Despite signing a new
promissory note, the Bank overlooked the term limit under the Deed of Trust securing its future advances. As between the two parties,
the responsibility of ensuring that future advances are adequately secured falls on the Bank. The Bank failed to execute a modification of the time period for which future advances would be secured under the Deed of Trust, despite both its ability to extend the term pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 45-68 and OBC’s authority to pledge
pursuant to the Hypothecation Agreement. As such, the Deed of Trust
date, and all advances made after that express date pursuant to the 2008 Note were no longer secured under the Deed of Trust. Thus, the trial court erred in finding that the Deed of Trust secures the debt evidenced by the 2008 Note either by its terms or pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Hypothecation Agreement. Consequently,
Deed of Trust and that the Substitute Trustee thereby has the authority to foreclose on respondent-appellant’s property under the Deed of Trust’s power of sale provision.
the trial court erred in finding that OBC is in default under the
expired on 18 April 2008, since no sums were advanced prior to that
the collateral for such a modification, extension, or renewal
collateral pledged as security for only those advances made prior
-16IV. Conclusion
debt owed by OBC to the Bank as evidenced by the 2008 Note is secured by the Deed of Trust pursuant to the terms of the
Hypothecation Agreement and that OBC is in default under the Deed of Trust. evidence, Substitute Because these findings are not supported by competent the trial court is erred in to its conclusion on that the
appellant’s property pursuant to the power of sale under the terms of the Deed of Trust. Accordingly, the order of the trial court
authorizing the Substitute Trustee to proceed with foreclosure under the power of sale contained in the Deed of Trust must be reversed.
We hold the trial court erred in its findings of fact that the
Documents similar to appellate.nccourts wDOTSAQuiet Title ApproachNiday, Mers Opening Brief Oregon Supreme CourtKnight v. Paxton, 124 U.S. 552 (1888)CASES(wala ung 3rd to the last na case-DELEON).docxBellistri v Ocwen Loan Servicing Mo App 201003091 "MERS has no standing"Foreclosure Jpmorgan Chase Bank v Cornish Thu 28 Oct 2010Hooker v BofA and MERSRobert Bellistri, Respondents, V. Ocwen Loan Servicing, Llc, Appellant. Missouri Court of Appeals 3-03-2009Deeds of Trust BainBellistivOcwen Bifurcation UnsecuredcommentsEdelstein v BONY Nevada Supreme Court 9 12Foreclosure LawsCA Short Form Deed of TrustG.R. No. 159666Moline Plow Co. v. Webb, 141 U.S. 616 (1891)Harter v. Twohig, 158 U.S. 448 (1895)Alabang Development Corp v ValenzuelaTONGOY vs CA Full TextFraudclosure Quality Loan_CARLOS AGUIRRE- Quiet Title Action «Dimock Quiet TitleMERS, The Laws of Agency, And the Statute of FraudsVirginia Tax Exemption Code -- 84-178Bradley v. Lightcap, 195 U.S. 1 (1904)Ong Ching Po v CA G.R. Nos. 113472-73 December 20, 1994Guide to Real Estate LawsHOT NEWS IN JULY!! MERS NOT THE REAL BENEFICIARY-NO STANDING TO FORECLOSE-Niday v GMAC Oregon Appeal Court Decision on MERSProperty 2 OutlineBank of America, NA v. La Jolla Group II, 28 Cal. Rptr. 3d 825 (2005)Books similar to appellate.nccourts wYour Living Trust and Estate Plan 2012-2013Your Living Trust & Estate PlanYour Virginia Wills, Trusts, & Estates Explained SimplyUse Foreclosure LawNine-tenths of the LawI.O.U. DeadMoguls of Real EstateTips on Your Personal Injury ClaimSalem and Roanoke County in Vintage PostcardsThree Alarm TenantOur LotDocuments about DeedMassachusetts Quitclaim Deed ExampleI am an attorney so I decided to sue my lender...Fraudulent Conveyance Quiet Title PacketReport on Fraudulent & Forged Assignments of Mortgages & Deeds in U.S. ForeclosuresREBA v. NREIS DecisionMERS RULES OF MEMBERSHIPMERS QA Procedures Rel19 5 DraftForeclosure Subprime Mortgage Lending and MERSDefective Real Estate DocumentsGeorgia Foreclosure Fraud Class Action - Georgia Residents v Georgia Foreclosure FraudstersMERS Info - Discovery - Submissions - Interrogatories Informal Settlements and Finance in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Quit Claim DeedProduce the Note California StyleGunsmoke Guns Search Warrant AffidavitMERS, The Unreported Effects of Lost Chain of Title on Real Property Owners and Their NeighborsGeorge Gingo - In the 5th District Florida Court of AppealsBank of America Countrywide Class Action CaliforniaIbanez Case JAN 2011Mills Response To First Horizon's Motion To DismissSaxon Mortgage Services, Inc., Et Al., Plaintiffs, V. Ruthie b. Hillery, Et Al., DefendantsTwo Faces Demystifying the Mortgage Electronic Registration System's Land Title TheoryChase Initial ComplaintGrant DeedMortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc and Country Wide Home Loans Inc v Warren e Agin Trustee AppelleeThe Florida Foreclosure Judge’s Bench BookCity Council Agenda, Dec. 19, 2011Contract for DeedMortgage DeedVoices of Women Entrepreneurs in TanzaniaBooks about Mortgage LawNavigating the Mortgage MazeI'm Losing My Home!; What Am I Going To Do Now?25 Insider Tips Home Buyers Should KnowThe Reverse Mortgage BookMoney—How to Save It, Spend It, and Make ItDocuments about Mortgage Law2016 Profile of International Home Buying Activity501 - Contract to Purchase Real Estate (c) 2012 - ID-WATERMARKA Guide to Understanding a Residential AppraisalYork Capital's Letter to InvestorsDepositionUniform Commercial Code UCC – The Note The Transferee and the WardrobeJames Gandolfini WillCFPB Closing DisclosureClass Action vs Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Gmac, Deutsche Bank, Nation Star, Aurora, Bac, Citi, Us Bank, Lps, Et AlRent to Own AgreementForeclosure Case Killer!- An Allonge Is Not Admissable Evidence of Bank’s OwnershipBarack Obama's Blueprint For Change50 Cent v. World Star Hip Hop OpinionExplanation of SecuritizationMortgage Assignments as Evidence of FraudAmerican International Group Inc and SubsidiariesMERS RULES OF MEMBERSHIPMortgage Broker Resume SampleLease AgreementPMI Ocwen Anderson Report - Sue First Ask Questions LaterMotion for Sanction of Dismissal With Prejudice or Dismissal for Unclean HandsMERS QA Procedures Rel19 5 DraftMortgage Assignment Fraud - U.S. Bank National Assoc., As Trustee v. Ernest E. Harpster Sl-2007-CA-6684-ESsection aMotion to Dismiss Complaint, Motion to Vacate Clerks Default and in the Alternative Motion for Summary JudgmentApartment Rental AgreementLender Processing Services' DOCX Document Fabrication Price SheetBooks about Trust LawA Tax Guide to Conservation EasementsInside Stories 2014Your Massachusetts Wills, Trusts, & Estates Explained SimplyYour Michigan Wills, Trusts, & Estates Explained SimplyYour Indiana Wills, Trusts & Estates Explained SimplyYour Washington Wills, Trusts, & Estates Explained SimplyYour Ohio Wills, Trusts, & Estates Explained SimplyCollection of Inside Stories 2015An Everyday Aussie’s Guide to Discretionary TrustsA history of romanian oil vol. I8 Ways to Avoid ProbateHow to Settle a Simple Estate Without a LawyerLawDocuments about Trust LawRNC PlatformThe Open Banking StandardProfiles in Innovation - May 24, 2016 (1)SEC v. CoopermanBlockchain TechnologyHidden Debt, Hidden DeficitsPalantir LawsuitPublication 6744, Volunteer Assistor's Test/RetestAmnesty-Breaking the Social Security BankLiving TrustSWARM Working Paper, Distributed Networks and the LawLast Will and TestamentUniform Commercial Code UCC – The Note The Transferee and the WardrobeMass Surveillance Report2012 Edelman Trust BarometerJames Gandolfini WillClass Action vs Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Gmac, Deutsche Bank, Nation Star, Aurora, Bac, Citi, Us Bank, Lps, Et AlForeclosure Case Killer!- An Allonge Is Not Admissable Evidence of Bank’s OwnershipSecuritization is IllegalBill Ackman's Presentation on Corrections Corp of America (CXW) @ the Value Investing CongressExplanation of SecuritizationDePauw Magazine Winter 2009-10Mortgage Assignments as Evidence of FraudNBA Constitution and by LawsWedbush November ReportUBS Complaint Against Jeffries, Lorello and KellyBooks about ForeclosureNothing Down for the 2000sDo You Have a MERS Mortgage?The Everything Guide to Buying ForeclosuresThe Pre-Foreclosure Real Estate HandbookForeclosure Survival Guide, TheForeclosure DefenseHouse of DebtFree & Clear, Standing & Quiet TitleThe Realtor & Investor's Complete Step by Step Guide To Mastering Foreclosures By State (Insider Secrets to Finding, Listing, Selling AND Profiting from Foreclosure Properties in ALL 50 States!)How to Avoid Foreclosure in California, 2012 EditionHUD Homes Half Off!Overcoming ForeclosureFederal Reserve Consumer HandbooksThe Broke Man's Survival GuideForeclosing the DreamHow to Buy Bank-Owned Properties for Pennies on the DollarForeclosure Mitigation Efforts in the United StatesDefeat ForeclosureHow To Find Free Foreclosure Listing Sites With No Sign-up Mini-GuideHow To Buy Foreclosure Homes Step-By-Step Guide With 40+ FREE Foreclosure Listings SitesFrom Foreclosure to Fair LendingThe 250 Questions Everyone Should Ask about Buying ForeclosuresHow to Buy Foreclosed Real EstateMortgage HellLoan Modifications, Foreclosures and Saving Your HomeHow to Survive and Prosper After a Financial MisfortuneThe Complete Guide to Locating, Negotiating, and Buying Real Estate ForeclosuresThe Complete Guide to Preventing Foreclosure on Your HomeDocuments about Foreclosure2016 Home Buyer and Seller Generational TrendsAllocation of Partnership Liabilities (Full Version)Glenview Q4 14Uniform Commercial Code UCC – The Note The Transferee and the WardrobeCFPB Closing DisclosureClass Action vs Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Gmac, Deutsche Bank, Nation Star, Aurora, Bac, Citi, Us Bank, Lps, Et AlForeclosure Case Killer!- An Allonge Is Not Admissable Evidence of Bank’s OwnershipIra Sohn Presentation 2014.05.05Barack Obama's Blueprint For ChangeExplanation of SecuritizationMortgage Assignments as Evidence of FraudMERS RULES OF MEMBERSHIPFlorida Rules of Civil ProcedurePMI Ocwen Anderson Report - Sue First Ask Questions LaterErica Johnson Seck Deposition - Indymac Federal Bank Fsb, Plaintiff, Vs. Israel a. Machado - 50 2008 CA 037322xxxx MbMotion for Sanction of Dismissal With Prejudice or Dismissal for Unclean HandsMERS QA Procedures Rel19 5 DraftMortgage Assignment Fraud - U.S. Bank National Assoc., As Trustee v. Ernest E. Harpster Sl-2007-CA-6684-ESsection aMotion to Dismiss Complaint, Motion to Vacate Clerks Default and in the Alternative Motion for Summary JudgmentDocket - Nguyen Et.al. v. Chase Bank USA, NA; Chase Home Finance LLC. Et.al.Motion - Substantiated Allegations of Foreclosure Fraud That Implicates the Florida Attorney General’s Office and The Florida Default Law GroupFlorida Attorney General Fraudclosure Report | Unfair, Deceptive and Unconscionable Acts in Foreclosure CasesHomeownership Preservation Policy for Residential Mortgage AssetsForeclosure Subprime Mortgage Lending and MERSDefective Real Estate DocumentsUnderstanding the Securitization Process and the Impact on Consumer Bankruptcy CasesGeorgia Foreclosure Fraud Class Action - Georgia Residents v Georgia Foreclosure FraudstersDocuments about Deed Of Trust (Real Estate)MERS RULES OF MEMBERSHIPMERS QA Procedures Rel19 5 DraftDefective Real Estate DocumentsMERS Info - Discovery - Submissions - InterrogatoriesProduce the Note California StyleGeorge Gingo - In the 5th District Florida Court of AppealsBank of America Countrywide Class Action CaliforniaMills Response To First Horizon's Motion To DismissSaxon Mortgage Services, Inc., Et Al., Plaintiffs, V. Ruthie b. Hillery, Et Al., DefendantsTwo Faces Demystifying the Mortgage Electronic Registration System's Land Title TheoryMortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Appellant, V. Lisa Marie Chong, Lenard e SchwartzerNon-Uniform Commercial CodeFailed RemicCars SowCongressional Oversight Panel Report on Foreclosure FraudBourne Valley CourtExpert Witness Testimony Example - Neil Garfield Living LiesPAUL NGUYEN, Et Al., Plaintiff, V. CHASE BANK USA, N.a., Et Al., Defendants.Martin v. Webb, 110 U.S. 7 (1884)Business Hints for Men and Women by Calhoun, Alfred RochefortOrder Approving G.M. Sale PlanPreliminary Injunction Order - Nguyen Et.al. v. Chase Bank USA, NA; Chase Home Finance LLC. Et.al.Ekerson v. MERS, CitiMortgage Inc., Et AlClerks RevengeJudge Laurel S. Brady Misconduct Contra Costa County - Receiver Kevin Singer Unauthorized Practice of Law - Motion Authorizing Counsel - State Bar of California - California Attorney General - Supreme Court of CaliforniaFull Affidavit of Nye Lavalle RE MERS 2005FDIC Report Special Foreclosure EditionMersArkansas Ruling