More information about Park Place's Florida resurrection to defeat Wells Fargo foreclosure actions will be forthcoming shortly. Read below a summary of the big problems we are giving Wells Fargo.
Are you an investor/certificate holder in any of the Park Place Securities REMIC offerings? We want to hear from you. Please email us at the address below.
If you are being foreclosed by a private label trust (by a bank acting as trustee) we can show you how to fight it. Actually, we will fight it. You will walk away with your home and a satisfied mortgage paid in full. If you are the first person in your state with a case involving a particular private label REMIC trust that fits the mold of PPSI, you will also get a big chuck (40 percent) of a valuable corporation and a long running income stream. Contact us at the email below.
Are You a Homeowner in Foreclosure? We can help, if you are pro se or with counsel.
We are not a law firm. What we do is even better and more important. We provide you and/or your attorney with ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE to prove that Wells Fargo as trustee for Park Place does NOT have the power to foreclose upon you.
At all times 96% of all voting rights will be allocated among the holders of the Offered Certificates in proportion to the then outstanding Certificate Principal Balances of their respective Certificates. All voting rights allocated to the Class A-3 Certificates and Class A-5 Certificates will be exercisable by the Certificate Insurer so long as the Policy is outstanding. At all times 1% of all voting rights will be allocated to the holders of each class of Class C, Class P, Class R and Class RX Certificates. The voting rights allocated to any class of Certificates shall be allocated among all holders of the Certificates of such class in proportion to the outstanding percentage interests in such class represented thereby.
Here in Florida the complaint must be verified. (We explain the difference between verifications and oaths in another article). The attorney has no personal knowledge (though sometimes they improperly do the verification) so the complaint is verified by a bank officer. In the case that really started all of this, the verification is done by a purported officer of Bank of America, which is the Servicer. No mention in the complaint this is what is going on and no mention of the Servicer's authority to foreclose. How does the Servicer EVEN know that Wells Fargo has the original note? In reality they don't. This is a type of fraud on the court that can get their case dismissed. On top of this, we have found that the bank officer allegedly signing the verification does not exist. He or she is a complete fiction. More details in other articles on this site.
BACKDATING EFFECTIVE DATES
In many jurisdictions it is permissible to have an earlier contract effective date than the date of signing (referred to in this paper as backdating), but is it advisable? Just because it is within the parties power to backdate a contract does not mean that it is without adverse consequences. The paper describes some of the potential pitfalls of a contract effective date that is substantially earlier than the date of signing and various methods used to provide for an earlier contract effective date.
Possible pitfalls include:
1. Liability Due To Misrepresentations Between Effective Date and Signing.
2. Breach Upon Signing.
3. Confidentiality Obligations That Apply Before Employees Are Advised Of Them.
4. Conspiracy And Tax Issues.
5. Assumption Of Unanticipated Obligations.
6. Possible Badge of Fraud.
7. Compliance Issues.
8. Prohibited In Certain Jurisdictions and Circumstances.
While using an effective date earlier than the execution date can be appropriate in some circumstances, the factors described in the paper, among others, should be considered before backdating a contract. For instance when a contract is signed in counterparts the parties may execute it on different dates. In that circumstance, use of an "as of" formulation as described in the paper could be appropriate. Also, when there has been contract performance prior to the execution of the contract that may be a reason to use an earlier effective date. However, it should be possible to describe that situation in the recitals and/or the body of the contract without backdating, and that would usually be a preferable approach.
A California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s decision and held that a borrower may sue a bank for wrongful foreclosure when an attempted transfer of loan to a securitized trust occurred after the trust’s closing date. Glaski v. Bank of America (--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, Cal.App. 5 Dist., July 31, 2015).
Bank of America acquired title to a California residence at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale pursuant to a successful credit bid under a promissory note and deed of trust. The homeowner sued Bank of America. The homeowner sought, among other things, to quiet title to his residence contending that the nonjudicial foreclosure sale was void due to an alleged defect in the chain of title of ownership of the promissory note and deed of trust under which the foreclosure sale was conducted.
The homeowner's loan orig
inally was with Washington Mutual Bank. After a number of assignments, the homeowner's promissory note and deed of trust were purportedly assigned to a securitized trust created under New York law that purportedly held title to the homeowner's promissory note and deed of trust in a pool of similar residential mortgages. At the time of the foreclosure sale, Bank of America was the successor trustee of the securitized trust. Bank of America directed the trustee under the deed of trust to foreclosure on the homeowner's home.
The homeowner alleged that the transfer of his promissory note and deed of trust to the securitized trust occurred after the securitized trust closed and after the securitized trust could no longer accept assignments. The homeowner alleged that the securitized trust did not own the promissory note and deed of trust due to this defect and, therefore, Bank of America could not foreclose on his home. In a demurrer, Bank of America principally asserted that the homeowner lacked standing to challenge the validity of the assignment of the promissory note and deed of trust because he was not a party to the assignment agreement nor was he a third party beneficiary.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision sustaining Bank of America's demurrer and dismissing the homeowner's complaint. It held that transfers that violate the terms of the trust instrument are void under New York trust law and borrowers have standing to challenge void assignments of their loans even though they are not parties to, or third party beneficiaries of, the assignment agreements.
For a deeper understanding of REMIC trusts see WikiPedia.
A good article we have quoted from is "Foreclose: Time to Break Up the Too-Big-to-Fail Banks."
MBS For UberNerds II: REMICs, Dogs, Tails, and Class Warfare
Also see: Peaslee, James M. & David Z. Nirenberg. Federal Income Taxation of Securitization Transactions and Related Topics. Frank J. Fabozzi Associates (2011, with periodic supplements, www.securitizationtax.com): and Silverstein, Gary J. REMICs, Tax Management: FASITs and Other Mortgage-Backed Securities. Tax Management Inc.: Securities Law Series (2007): A-54.
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits" -- Albert Einstein
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” Patrick Henry
David Stern Law Offices
David J. Stern
Dan F. Schramm
Park Place Securities, Inc.
2011 Flagler Avenue Key West, FL 33040
Contact Us: email@example.com
Park Place Securities, Inc. is a Florida, USA Corporation.
||Blue Planet Security|| |