Source: https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2014/07/22/how-standing-is-causing-the-longest-economic-recovery-since-the-great-depression/
Timestamp: 2017-06-29 14:15:38
Document Index: 731700998

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§33', '§33', '§ 33', '§ 33']

How “Standing” Is Causing the Longest Economic Recovery Since the Great Depression | Livinglies's Weblog
Spread the wordClick to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Click to email (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Like this:Like Loading...	Filed under: AMGAR, CORRUPTION, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, GTC | Honor, investment banking, Investor, MBS TRUSTEE, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, originator, Pleading, Servicer, Title, TRUST BENEFICIARIES, trustee | Tagged: ARIZONA, assignment fabricated, First Magnus, foreclosure, lender, Merendon Mining, Saxon, Substitution of Trustee, Vasquez |	« Investors Are Starting to Understand How They Are Being Screwed — Just Like Borrowers Yuba CA Jury Awards $15 Million in Punitive Damages »
Deborah wynn, on July 22, 2014 at 9:45 pm said:	That was Magna Carta. ( auto correct this time I’m typing good today)
Deborah wynn, on July 22, 2014 at 9:43 pm said:	Neil is right about the ponzi. It’s only going to escalate and the lies will continue Unless our courts get busy about due process rule of law and all that it’s meant to be, from the manga carta and the United States constitution.
Deborah wynn, on July 22, 2014 at 9:25 pm said:	And screw the REMICS what about the contract and clear title
Deborah wynn, on July 22, 2014 at 9:24 pm said:	Agree Louise but he who fights and gets away – lives to fight another day. Ain’t over yet for Arizonians or Brits for that matter
We would have to see all of the pleadings because then we might see why that decision came out pear shaped !
mycookiejars, on July 22, 2014 at 7:27 pm said:	The previous owners (deceased) had satisfaction of mortgage and held property in a revocabe trust til their death. Now what reason would their law firm have adding their name to the trustee deed with my husband instead of me? Why won’t they file the trustee agreement from seller estate? What is their intrests in the lender and capital asset co? Dag gone Questions! The answers lead to more questions
mycookiejars, on July 22, 2014 at 7:14 pm said:	Unrecorded lien. You can not fc an estate free n clear of liens held in irrevcocable life trust for a debt of only one of the settlors/ grantor/ trustee. . Unless of course … You get the “I don’t object”. From the other trustees/grantors. Am I thinking to much out loud again? Yes We Can … Say No.
Ian, on July 22, 2014 at 7:02 pm said:	Neidermeir- you are right about that- I remember a spokesperson from IRS stating to the effect that ” we are not going to use the IRC to promote social policy”. This was in response to the Va AG I believe attempting sue REMIC’S for unpaid taxes due to prohibited transactions. As I recall.
mycookiejars, on July 22, 2014 at 6:21 pm said:	Just say No to Thugs and Enforce the Contract.
mycookiejars, on July 22, 2014 at 6:17 pm said:	So Illinois is a lien theory state and a Judicial state for mortgages. Owners retain title and lender gets a lien. (No Lien on title). WHY?
louise, on July 22, 2014 at 6:08 pm said:	That Arizona decision was a BS decision.
mycookiejars, on July 22, 2014 at 6:06 pm said:	Ok Deb, my husband and I granted as TIE with right of survivorship. A W.D. To capital asset co.at closing. Its unfiled. But legal here to. Irrevocable Living Trust. BUT only my husband is on the loan. Taking A Bite Out of Crime. 🙂
Deborah wynn, on July 22, 2014 at 5:43 pm said:	http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2011/syllabus/arizona-supreme-court-holds-narrowly-for-lenders-in as under:
“Arizona Supreme Court Holds Narrowly for Lenders in Vasquez v. Saxon Mortgage, Inc.
| Ariz. L. Rev. Syl. (2011)
On November 18, the Arizona Supreme Court filed its decision in Vasquez v. Saxon Mortgage, Inc., et al.1 The case centered on whether the defendant Deutsche Bank could foreclose on Tucson homeowner Julia Vasquez, even though Deutsche Bank was not the beneficiary of record on the deed of trust. Saxon Mortgage, the originator of the loan and co-defendant, was still the beneficiary of record on the deed of trust because the assignment to Deutsche Bank had not been recorded. In a narrow holding based in Arizona statutory law, the court held that Deutsche Bank could foreclose on Julia Vasquez.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona certified two questions to the Arizona Supreme Court:
Is the recording of an assignment of deed of trust required prior to the filing of a notice of trustee’s sale under A.R.S. § 33-808 when the assignee holds a promissory note payable to bearer?
“Must the beneficiary of a deed of trust being foreclosed pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-807 have the right to enforce the secured obligation?”
The court held that an assignment of a deed of trust does not need to be recorded prior to the filing of a notice of trustee’s sale to enforce the secured obligation against a mortgagor. The court only answered the first certified question because the second certified question was “not determinative” of the case.
The court stressed that Arizona deed of trust law “is a creature of statutes,” and, as a result, viewed its role as “entirely one of statutory construction.” The court based its reasoning on A.R.S. §§ 33-808, 33-412(B), 33-817, and 33-411.01.
A.R.S. § 33-808 regulates a notice of trustee’s sale. This section does not overtly require the recording of an assignment of a deed of trust before the trustee’s sale. It noted that the policy behind recording statutes is to “protect interests in property against claims of subsequent purchasers or creditors without notice.” The court also considered A.R.S. § 33-412(B)—providing that “[u]nrecorded instruments, as between the parties and their heirs … shall be valid and binding”—as further proof that recording statutes are meant to protect such interests. They do not, the court noticed, “affect a deed’s validity as to the obligor.”
The heart of the opinion revolved around A.R.S. §§ 33-817 and 33-411.01. A.R.S. § 33-817, in the view of the court, stands for a “mortgage follows the note” theory. The section provides that “[t]he transfer of any contract or contracts secured by a trust deed shall operate as a transfer of the security for such contract or contracts.” The Court could find no logical reason to imply a recording requirement into §33-808 when “§33-817 does not require separate documentation of an assignment of the deed of trust when the secured note is transferred.” A.R.S. § 33-411.01 imposes a consequence on those who fail to record the transfer of a deed of trust:
indemnification of legal fees in “any action in which the transferee’s interest in such property is at issue.” Although the section states that deeds “shall be recorded,” the court noted that the section did “not impose a recording requirement.” Similarly, the court found that the section did not “suggest that a notice of trustee’s sale on a previously assigned deed of trust is valid only if the assignment was recorded.”
Finally, the court dismissed the argument that such a recording of an assignment is necessary to give effect to A.R.S. § 33-807.01, “which requires lenders to ‘explore options’ with borrowers at least thirty days before recording a notice of trustee’s sale.” While the Attorney General argued as amicus curiae that unless so interpreted “homeowners will not know with whom to ‘explore options,’” the Court noted that the statute “requires the lender to contact the homeowner, not the other way around.”
The court declined to address the second certified question, finding it moot because Deutsche Bank held the promissory note and had the legal right to record the notice of trustee’s sale.
Julia Vasquez’s case now returns to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Given the unusual issues that have arisen in this case so far, it could easily remain in the public eye.
Vasquez v. Saxon Mortgage, Inc., 2011 WL 5599440, ___ P.3d ___ (Ariz. 2011). ↩”
Deborah wynn, on July 22, 2014 at 4:05 pm said:	Re the tax burden
WhAt say our children and their children. It’s called the poverty trap.
neidermeyer, on July 22, 2014 at 3:20 pm said:	@ Bob G. The investors have nothing to worry about with REMIC status , the IRS knows all about it and has given the “trusts” and therefore the investors a pass on the non-ownership. The private banks that make up the Federal Reserve own the government… they will not be made to pay for their crimes .. the best we can hope for is to end the ponzi and clean up their mess (at our expense).
Deborah wynn, on July 22, 2014 at 2:37 pm said:	I know I’m not spot on but I’m closer n closer
( not an attorney obviously)
Deborah wynn, on July 22, 2014 at 2:37 pm said:	Think about it ” this company is a debt collector” that ” company” issued a IRS doc against my name and they never loaned me a dime that company is servicing for a purported trust that Have a purported trustee who has no interest in real estate ( but later buys ( is posing as a BUYER) at ” auction” something they want to now ” sell” to another asking a sub trustee and their attorney to act as a shield ) now back to tax issue, the debt collector became debt collector by buying certain assets one being servicing rights from a failed bank via FDIC – term ” sweetheart deal “ring a bell? They were NOT the successor in interest – the debt owed is not proved up in any way under fdcpa and never satisfied the statute of frauds
Because – it is.
mycookiejars, on July 22, 2014 at 1:46 pm said:	Lying that is . . .
mycookiejars, on July 22, 2014 at 1:44 pm said:	Yes they are Deb! Yes they are!
Deborah wynn, on July 22, 2014 at 1:41 pm said:	It’s tax fraud – the parties claiming a tax break and declaring a certain amount ” owed” are lying.
mycookiejars, on July 22, 2014 at 11:58 am said:	What part about the FCs costing the pensions to lose money do you not understand? Good Heavens! Stop That Crap with the Judges!
louise, on July 22, 2014 at 11:42 am said:	My primary issue with this post is that I do not believe that the judges do not understand what is going on. I think they do, and they want to protect their pension plans which are invested in mortgage backed securities. In my state, the judges/clerks’ pension plan actually sued BONY Mellon for bad MBS investments. How can you not know that the MBS’s were corrupt and worthless? A new lawsuit has also been initiated re the County Recorder suing MERS. Counties contend the system hides who owns loans, often by listing only MERS as the owner, not a specific member bank or service. That constitutes fraud and undermines the county’s property-ownership records, which state law requires to list the exact owner of a property’s title,
mycookiejars, on July 22, 2014 at 11:36 am said:	And because the banks had become a large part of US GDP used to pay National Debt they became TBTF. Other econmies around the world would crash In a chain reaction to the US defaulting on its debt. This lead to the taxpayer bailout. Three prong Stick. Invester, Homeowner and Taxpayer. One Buttwipe Broker/Dealer, adba asset co. Many Blessings to All.
Charles Reed, on July 22, 2014 at 11:22 am said:	Neil still all these year into this Ponzi fails to understand that the investors did not and cannot purchase a single home mortgages. And you wonder why this crime still lives on!
Bob G., on July 22, 2014 at 10:30 am said:	Here’s the problem with all this: the investors need to be careful about having their actions jeopardize their REMIC tax status. That’s why it makes no sense for them to claim late transfers or no transfers. They seem to be alleging proper transfers, but appraisal fraud and other common law frauds in the suits.
Scott Thompson, on July 22, 2014 at 10:19 am said:	This John Jones fellow sounds very busy. What the hell, where do they find the strength of soul for all that. Just reading it makes me want to go take a nap.