Category Archives: County Recorder

UCC Filing Locations

Regional Filings for UCC

You may file your personal UCC-1 in your state of
residence or the suggested regional state.

 

Region 1
Washington State, Oregon, Nevada, California,
New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Alaska, Hawaii, Arizona

State to filing electronically:
Washington State... Internet Address:
https://fortress.wa.gov/dol/ucc/

Region 2
Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska.

State to File electronically:
Idaho State..... Internet Address:
http://www.sos.idaho.gov/UCCOnline/Default.aspx

Region 3
Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana

State to File Electronically:
Texas.... Internet Address:
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/corp/sosda/index.shtml

Alternate State to File Electronically:
Kansas....Internet Address:
https://www.accesskansas.org/apps/uccfiling

Region 4
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana,
Ohio

State to Electronically File:
Wisconsin.... Internet Address:
http://www.wdfi.org/ucc/instantucc/

Region 5
Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida

State to Electronically File:
Kentucky... Internet Address:
https://app.sos.ky.gov/ftucc/(S(nwa2nvqucp3popsdw4l2sb42))/default.aspx

Region 6
Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont,
New York, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Maryland. New Jersey, Rhode Island.

State to File Electronically
Massachusetts.......Internet Address:
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/cor/corpweb/corucc/uccmain.htm

Alternate State to File Elctronically:
Maine....Internet Address:
https://www1.maine.gov/cgi-bin/online/ucc/index.pl

Alternate State to File Elctronically:
Delaware... Internet Address:
https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/Ecorp/UCC.aspx

Alternate State to File Elctronically:
New Jersey..Internet Address:
https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/revenue/dcr/
filing/ucc_lead.htm

States that do not usually accept Mail-in filings:
IN, AL, AZ, CO, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, NV, MO, OH,
PA, SC, VA, IL, OK, DE, MT


INDIVIDUAL STATE UCC FILLING OFFICES
Secretary of State, UCC Dept.
Building 1, Suite 157-K
1900 Kanawha Blvd. East
Charleston, WV 25305

Phone: 304-558-6000
Fax:     304-558-5758
Web:   
www.wvsos.com
Email: wvsos@secretary.state.wv.us

Alabama (COST EFFECTIVE)

Web:   www.sos.state.al.us/
Email: www.sos.state.al.us/webforms/mailform.cfm

Alaska

Web:   www.dnr.state.ak.us/
Email: www.dnr.state.ak.us/pic/dnrdirectory.htm

Arizona (NOT RECOMMENDED)

Web:   www.sosaz.com/
Email: ucc@sos.state.az.us

Arkansas

Web:   www.sosweb.state.ar.us/
Email: corporations@sosmail.state.ar.us

California

Web:   www.ss.ca.gov/
Email: lere@ss.ca.gov

Colorado (COST EFFECTIVE)

Web:   www.sos.state.co.us/
Email:  sos.business@sos.state.co.us

Connecticut

Web:   www.sots.state.ct.us/
Email: crd@po.state.ct.us

Deleware

Web:   www.state.de.us/sos/
Email: sdocweb@state.de.us

Washington DC

Web:   www.washingtondc.gov
Email: john.mowery@dcgov

Florida

Web:   www.floridaucc.com
Email: corphelp@mail.dos.state.fl.us

Georgia (COST EFFECTIVE)

Web:   www.gsccca.org
Email: mikesmith@gscca.org

Hawaii

Web:   www.hawaii.gov/
Email: www.state.hi.us/dlnr/bc/geninfo.htm

Idaho

Web:   www.idsos.state.id.us/
Email: sosinfo@idsos.state.id.us

Illinois (RECOMMENDED)

Web:   www.sos.state.il.us/
Email: none

Indiana

Web:   www.in.gov or www.sos.in.gov
Email: www.statein.us/serv/

Iowa

Web:   www.sos.state.ia.us/
Email: sos@sos.state.ia.us

Kansas (COST EFFECTIVE)

Web:   www.kssos.org/
Email: kathys@kssos.org

Kentucky (COST EFFECTIVE)

Web:   www.sos.state.ky.us/
Email: none

Louisiana

Web:   www.sec.state.la.us/
Email: ucc@sec.state.la.us

Maine

Web:   www.state.me.us/sos/
Email: cec_corporations@state.me.us

Maryland

Web:   www.dat.state.md.us/
Email: www.dat.state.md.us/sdatweb/feedback.html

Massachusetts

Web:   www.state.ma.us/sec/
Email:  laurie.flynn@sec.state.ma.us

Michigan

Web:   www.michigan.gov/sos
Email:  nickersonj@state.mi.us

Minnesota

Web:  www.sos.state.mn.us/
Email:
ucc.dept@sos.state.mn.us

Mississippi (COST EFFECTIVE)

Web:   www.sos.state.ms.us/
Email:  wthompson@sos.state.ms.us

Missouri

Web:   www.sos.state.mo.us/
Email: sosmain@sosmail.state.mo.us

Montana

Web:   www.sos.state.mt.us
Email: sos@state.mt.us

Nebraska (NOT RECOMMENDED)

Web:   www.nol.org/home/sos/
Email:  sos07@nol.org

Nevada (NOT RECOMMENDED)

Web:   www.sos.state.nv.us/
Email: tracy@govmail.state.nv.us

Hew Hampshire

Web:  www.state.nh.us/sos/
Email:
ucc@sos.state.nh.us

New Jersey

Web:  www.state.nj.us/njbgs/services.html
Email: none

New Mexico (NOT RECOMMENDED)

Web:  www.sos.state.nm.us/
Email:
nmsos@compuserve.com

New York

Web:  www.dos.state.ny.us/
Email:
corporations@dos.state.ny.us

North Carolina (COST EFFECTIVE)

Web:  www.secstate.state.nc.us/
Email:
uccmail@sosnc.com

North Dakota

Web:  www.state.nd.us/sec/
Email:
sosbir@state.nd.us

Ohio

Web:  www.state.oh.us/sos/
Email:
busserv@sos.state.oh.us

Oklahoma

Web:  www.sos.state.ok.us/
Email:
uccoffice@oklahomacounty.org

Oregon (NOT RECOMMENDED)

Web:   www.sos.state.or.us/
Email: gary.1.johnson@state.or.us

Pennsylvania

Web:  www.dos.state.pa.us/index.htm
Email: none

Rhode Island

Web:  www.state.ri.us/
Email:
devery@sec.state.ri.us

South Carolina (COST EFFECTIVE)

Web:  www.scsos.com
Email:
www.scsos.com/feedback.htm

South Dakota (COST EFFECTIVE)

Web:  www.state.sc.us/sos.ucc.htm
Email:
dakotafastfile@state.sd.us

Tennessee

Web:  www.state.tn.us/sos/
Email:
business.services@state.tn.us

Texas

Web:   www.sos.state.tx.us/
Email:
mjachson@sos.state.tx.us

Utah

Web:  www.commerce.utah.gov
Email:
seanreed@utah.gov

Vermont (COST EFFECTIVE)

Web:  www.sec.state.vt.us/
Email:
lsafford@sec.state.vt.us

Virginia

Web:  www.soc.state.va.us
Email: none

Virgin Islands

Web:  www.gov.vi
Email: none

West Virginia (COST EFFECTIVE) (RECOMMENDED)

Secretary of State, UCC Dept.
Building 1, Suite 157-K
1900 Kanawha Blvd. East
Charleston, WV 25305

Phone: 304-558-6000
Fax:     304-558-5758
Web:   
www.wvsos.com
Email: wvsos@secretary.state.wv.us

Wisconsin

Web:  www.wdfi.org/
Email:
info@dfi.state.wi.us

Wyoming (COST EFFECTIVE)

Web:  www.state.wy.us/
Email:
ucc@state.wy.us

Source: Freedom Resource Center - UCC Filing

Recommended Links For Remedies

The links on this page will provide you with invaluable study material, templates and guides. If you are needing a remedy for your particular situation, you may find the help you need in the vast amount of information that will be uncovered in the links below.

Here are some excellent links from Yusef El's site, HighFrequencyRadioNetwork.com. Bookmark these pages for future reference!

PDF files for study: http://highfrequencyradionetwork.com/pdf-files/

Templates and guides: http://highfrequencyradionetwork.com/templates/

Case law: http://highfrequencyradionetwork.com/case-law/

Interesting links: http://highfrequencyradionetwork.com/links/

Here are some excellent links from the Hindsight Radio Family!

Here are the website links

Keith Bey: http://www.keithbey.com/

Dwight Bey: http://www.corporatefreedomgroup.com/

Khalifa: http://www.templeofcommerce.com/

You can order a consultation by visiting any of the websites listed above. You may want to listen to shows from each one at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hindsight2020 to determine who you want to consult with.

Acceptance of Deed Creator

Create an Acceptance of Deed document FREE!

Create Your Document HERE!

This form will create an Acceptance Of Deed template for your records.

I am NOT a lawyer and THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at Contact Me Here..

After you complete the form and click update, your document template will be produced below the form. You can copy-and-paste the template into your document editing program of choice and work on it from there.

Return to FightTheFraud.com

Resources For Remedies

The links on this page will provide you with invaluable study material, templates and guides. If you are needing a remedy for your particular situation, you may find the help you need in the vast amount of information that will be uncovered in the links below.

 

Here are some excellent links from Yusef El's site, HighFrequencyRadioNetwork.com. Bookmark these pages for future reference!

PDF files for study: http://highfrequencyradionetwork.com/pdf-files/

Templates and guides: http://highfrequencyradionetwork.com/templates/

Case law: http://highfrequencyradionetwork.com/case-law/

Interesting links: http://highfrequencyradionetwork.com/links/

Return to FightTheFraud.com

Notary Presentment Services

Notary (Administrative Process) Presentment Services:
Provided by Natural and Divine Principles, SSM

Here is a brief outline of the steps that are normally required for the notary presentment process. Click the link in the top menu or;  GO HERE

This is the simple Administrative Technology that we use to help people find a remedy for some of their financial (primarily real estate) issues. It has proven to be a powerful and superior method to produce a solid Administrative Record that can possibly be used as admissible evidence to obtain and enforce a civil court judgment against anyone laying claim to your property.

Here is a brief outline of the steps that are normally required for the notary presentment process. Click the link in the top menu or;  GO HERE

We truly hope this information helps you acquire the remedy that you are seeking regarding all of your debt issues.

Questions for Discovery, Disclosure, and Remedies

Questions for Discovery, Disclosure, and Remedies:     

.
1. What are some the Instruments, Documents or Articles of Evidence lawfully needed and necessary for the Banks, the Loan Officers, the Debt Collectors, or for the sponsoring Corporate City of Philadelphia, to enter into ‘Evidence’ before competent judicial Court(s) ‘Moved’ to sanction the ‘Writs of Execution’ or any other Actions used to seize or to claim confiscation - ownership of the Homeowner(s) private properties? Are you aware of the existence of such requisite Instruments? Were you given certified copies of any of these Instruments before the Action(s) were commenced? Did you, the Homeowner(s) or Borrower(s) publicize a claim for your undisclosed Estate(s) or (Trusts) or were you given the opportunity to Discharge the alleged Debts? Did proper sanctioning Courts and the Sheriff rightly examine and investigate the following (for the Record) as required by due process?

a.) Submission of Original Promissory Note(s) (front and back). _____.

b.) Submission of every Allonge (front and back). _____.

c.) Shown to the Court(s) evidentiary proof of the true Holder(s) and filed Documented proof of Authority for someone to ‘Represent’ or to ‘Act’ for the lawfully - verified and reachable Holder(s). _____.

Yes _____.   No _____. I Don’t Know _____.      

.
2. The word, Mortgage means, ‘Dead Pledge’! Affirm for the record what is ‘dead’ about a Mortgage and ‘who’ is the Pledge?
I Knew The Meaning of A Mortgage.________.  
I Did Not Know. _____.
The _________________ is ‘Dead’.    _____________________is the ‘Pledge’.
I Do Not Know Who The Pledge Is. ____.     
.
3. Name the Person or Party that issued the MORTGAGE, and is that Party lawfully documented and identified as the present HOLDER(s) of the alleged LOAN or PROMISSORY NOTE?
The Verified Holder is:___________________________.
I Don’t Know _____.                
.
4. Did the Bank Representative, Loan Officer or PARTY issuing the LOAN, sell the MORTGAGE / LOAN to another PARTY? If so, how soon after, were the MORTGAGE / LOAN sold after their initial issue? Were you, the Borrower, informed of a sale?
Yes _____.  No _____.  
.
5. How much MONEY (Specie) did the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s) place in the hand of the alleged Borrower? Did a physical transaction of any MONEY (specie) from the Lender to the Borrower ever take place during the commencement or execution of the MORTGAGE agreement contract?
Yes _____.  No _____.
How Much Money (Specie) Was Given? ________________________.              
.
6. Did the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s) give the alleged Borrower any tangible thing at all, other than to give to the alleged borrower a copy of the Promissory Note Contract?
Yes _____.  No _____.                 
.
7. Did the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s) sign the MORTGAGE CONTRACT (with a wet-ink signature) at the time of the execution of the Loan Contract, to seal the deal with the alleged Borrower?
Yes _____.  No _____.                 
.
8. Did the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s) inform the Borrower that he or she (the Lender) was planning to, or that he or she (the Lender) was authorized by the Borrower(s), to open up or to establish a TRUST ACCOUNT in the Borrower’s name(s)?
Yes _____.  No _____.                
.
9. Did the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s) give you (the Borrower), the original or a certified copy of the DEED OF TRUST?
Yes _____.  No _____.                 
.
10. Did the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s) (at any time during the construction of the Mortgage or Agreement) say that you, the Borrower, bequeaths or donates your home or property as a GIFT (de donis) to the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s)? Was the subject of the home or property (as a gift to them) ever discussed?
Yes _____.  No _____.                
.
11. Did you, the alleged Borrower(s), receive any MONEY (specie) derived from any benefits generated by the ‘DEED OF TRUST’ or by any other Agreement(s) from the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s)?
Yes _____.  No _____.                 
.
12. Did the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s) receive any MONEY or BENEFITS from, or have access to money derived from, the DEEDS OF TRUST and informing the Borrower(s), of such transactions?
Yes _____.  No _____. I Don’t Know _____.     
.
13. Did the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s) inform you, the Homeowner(s), about the type of TRUST that was created in your name(s)? Is it a Cestui Que Trust?
Yes ____.  No ____. I Don’t Know ____.
Is it a Cestui Que Use Trust?         Yes ____.  No ____. I Don’t Know ____.
Is it a Cestui Que Vie Trust?       Yes ____.  No ____. I Don’t Know____. 
.
14. Did the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s) at any time, make any verbal or written TRUST REPORTS to you, the alleged Borrower(s)? Did the Trustee(s) mention ‘Reconveyance’ to you?
Yes _____.  No _____.                 
.
15. Are the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s) the proven and legitimate HOLDERS of the MORTGAGES, or are they acting with deceit and Arbitrary when, in fact, they are not the true HOLDERS? Are they seeking to opportunistically Claim private properties under some undisclosed ‘Rules of ABANDONMENT’ of the Deeds of Trust, of which the Borrowers were not informed?
Yes _____.  No _____. I Don’t Know _____.                
.
16. Did verified, competent Courts and the Sheriff examine and investigate the Instruments entered into the PUBLIC RECORD by the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s) before initiating or moving to grant FORECLOSURE Orders and WRITS OF EXECUTION? Were the Homeowners informed by the Trustee(s) or Feoffer(s) prior to the Foreclosure Actions, or about the Trustee’s plan to sell the Deeds of Trust?Yes _____.  No _____. I Don’t Know _____.                
.
17. Are there any other unidentified Assigns, Parties, Trustees, Feoffers, Trusts, or associated Instruments, about whom or which the Homeowner(s) or property owner(s) should be informed by Disclosure?
Yes _____.  No _____. I Don’t Know _____.                 
.
18. Do the Homeowners, whose names were placed on undisclosed TRUSTS by the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s), have access to, or have Beneficiary Rights of Emoluments or Possession to, the profits generated by the Deeds of Trust?
Yes _____.  No _____. I Don’t Know _____.      
.
19. Do you, or did you, the Homeowner or property owner, plan or intend to ABANDON your Home or Private Property or to sell the Deed of Trust?
Yes _____.  No _____.      
.
20. Did the Bank Representative(s) or Loan Officer(s) threaten, coerce, pressure, or by some other manner or influence, tell, or encourage you, (the Homeowner) to ABANDON your Home, Private Property, or Deed of Trust?
Yes _____.  No _____.     
.
21. Was the Sheriff paid or compensated in any undisclosed form by the Banks or Loan Officers to enforce the WRITS OF EXECUTION against Homeowners or property owners?           
Yes _____.  No _____. I Don’t Know _____.     
.
22. Have the Homeowners or any other Representative(s) acting on their behalf, assured that these primal matters are in proper order, and that the same have been ‘Disclosed’ to the Homeowners and property owners? Have all due processes of law been affirmatively followed by the Courts and the Sheriff, and posted for the ‘Public Record’ before any Foreclosure Actions were sanctioned?
Yes _____. No _____. I Don’t Know _____. 
.
b ____________________________________________ a   
.
    Additional Notices:  If the Foregoing Questions are not certifiably and affirmatively understood, answered and documented ‘For the Record’, then the Homeowners, property owners, and the ‘Coalition’ participants have much more active studies, demands, and Discovery - demand work to do! Get busy before any other ill-informed ralliers or RALLIES are held in vain; or before any other untenable FORECLOSURE, OR SHERIFF’S SALES take place!!! The threatened sales of natural peoples’ private properties were, are, and have been posted in the public newspapers and public records! When any government official or Public Servant uses authority to rule against, or to make judgements or decrees against the natural people or citizens, which terminate in the injury, loss of property, loss of liberties, or the interruption, confiscation, or restriction of any substantive right, such Public Servant(s) must also post in those same publications and instances, the verifiable and documented “Delegation of Authority Order” (D.O.A.O.) of the Officer(s) exercising such powers.       
.
     A Sheriff is the Chief Executive and Administrative Officer of a county; holding this seat of Office by virtue of being chosen by popular ELECTION. The Sheriff’s principal duties are to aid the Criminal Courts and Civil Courts of Record. They are assigned to such acts as, serving process; summoning juries; executing judgements; holding judicial sales; and other associated law and legal matters. The Sheriff is also the chief conservator of the peace within his or her territorial jurisdiction. This delegated authority also includes the Deputy Sheriff.

Deeds of Trust do NOT convey a right to Foreclose

Published on May 27, 2014

By Tex Mason
www.thctrust.org

The Mortgage Deed in itself does not attach to, nor does it create an enforceable right for the BANK (and their Attorney) to enforce an action (foreclosure) against your property. This is according to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) article 9-203(b).

Why is this an important find?
Before an Attorney can initiate an action to foreclose, the LAW requires that he produce a statute or a contract from which he derives his authority to take such action. Without such authority written in a Law or a Contract, the Bank (or Attorney) has no legal authority to take such action.

Typically, during the initiating of a foreclosure proceeding, the attorney will file a copy of the Mortgage Deed into the court docket. You may not understand what he is doing. He is essentially trying to create the presumption in the court, that the Security Deed conveys or grants the Bank the right to attach to and foreclose against your property.

It is important that you research UCC article 9-210 so you can understand how to apply it in court, in such a way to disprove and diffuse the presumption made by the Attorney.

You may be wondering how is all of this allowed to happen if the Mortgage Deed doesn't authorize such a right. Well ignorance of the law is no excuse. The Attorney is banking on the fact that you are ignorant to the law, and that you will not challenge his authority in the matter.

Now that you know the law, you actually may have a valid counter-claim for "Fraud on the Court"

The attorney knows that the Mortgage Deed doesn't convey a right to foreclose, but he introduced the document to intentional mislead the court and/or to make a false representation.

This is not legal advice and I do not practice law. For more lectures like this and other information visit www.thctrust.org

MERS v. Robinson… Big Win For Robinson in California Quite Title Case

MERS Gets It's ASS Handed To It!

BIG Win Over MERS Download Court Order Here

 On January 11, 2012, Defendants filed a civil action in the

Los Angeles County Superior Court to quiet title to the Property

and expunge the Deed of Trust.

I. Background

On January 11,2012, Defendants filed a civil action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court to quiet title to the Property and expunge the Deed of Trust. See Compl. 130. Defendants named United Pacific Mortgage – the original Lender under the Deed of Trust, as a defendant in the quiet title action; however, Defendants did not name MERS – the nominee of United Pacific Mortgage, as a party or provide any notice of the lawsuit to MERS. Id. ,33. Because United Pacific Mortgage did not appear in the action, Defendants secured a default judgment, thereby expunging the Deed of Trust on the Property. Id. , 35, Ex. 4. On April 25, 2013, Defendants recorded the judgment expunging the Deed of Trust on the Property in the Official Records of the Recorder’s Office of Los Angeles County as instrument number 20130621913. Id.
. . .

A. Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 762.010

The gravamen of the parties’ dispute raises a single, all-important question: Were Plaintiffs entitled to notice of Defendants , quiet title action before Defendants brought that action in Califomia state court? Defendants unsurprisingly answer this question in the negative, reasoning that Plaintiffs were not entitled to notice of the quiet title action because Plaintiffs are merely the nominee or agent of the Lender under the Deed of Trust and therefore have no
independent interest in the Property. See Mot. 14:19-26; see also Mot. 18:19-12 (“Plaintiffs’ claim of ownership, and of the rights of a beneficiary with status as a party in interest, is strictly a fiction. “). Plaintiffs, on the other hand, answer in the affirmative, declaring that as the identified “beneficiary of record” under the Deed of Trust, they have an interest in the Property sufficient to entitle them to notice of Defendants’ quiet title action. See Opp. 2:14-16 (“As the plainly identified beneficiary of record under a deed of trust, MERS claimed an interest that entitled it to so notice.”). For the reasons explained infra, the Court must side with Defendants. Plaintiffs were not entitled to notice of the quiet title action.

[MERS et al Lost on ALL Counts]

The Court therefore DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ section 762.010 claim to set aside the judgment in the quiet title action WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
. . .
The Court thus DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ slander of title claim WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
. . .
Because Plaintiffs here present no other viable state law claims for relief, they necessarily fail to assert a claim for cancellation of instruments as well. See Reade, 2013 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 160681, at *26. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the claim WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
. . .
The Court thus DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

IV. Conclusion

Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. If Plaintiffs wish to file an amended complaint, they must do so by March 3, 2014. Failure to file an amended complaint by this date will result in the dismissal with prejudice of the action.

Download Court Order Here

Download MERS Complaint Here

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OPINION ORDERED PUBLISHED ON 8/8/13 Re: Borrower May Challenge The Securitized Trust’s Chain of Ownership

THOMAS A. GLASKI, v. BANK OF AMERICA N.A OPINION ORDERED PUBLISHED on 8/8/13 Author: Franson, Jr., Donald R.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OPINION ORDERED PUBLISHED ON 8/8/13

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE DOCUMENT HERE (30 pages, PDF).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OPINION ORDERED PUBLISHED ON 8/8/13

Re: Borrower May Challenge The Securitized Trust’s Chain of Ownership

Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A.

Case Number F064556

The judgment of dismissal is reversed. The trial court is directed to vacate its order sustaining the general demurrer and to enter a new order overruling that demurrer as to the third, fourth, fifth, eighth, and ninth causes of action. Glaski's request for judicial notice filed on September 25, 2012, is denied. Glaski shall recover his costs on appeal; Franson, Wiseman, Kane; 29 pages.

Opinion ordered published on 8/8/13

Publication Status: Signed Published

Author: Franson, Jr., Donald R.

Participants: Wiseman, Rebecca A. (Concur)

Kane, Stephen J. (Concur)

The allegations that the instant case shares with some of the other lawsuits are that (1) documents related to the foreclosure contained forged signatures of Deborah Brignac and (2) the foreclosing entity was not the true owner of the loan because its chain of ownership had been broken by a defective transfer of the loan to the securitized trust established for the mortgage-backed securities. Here, the specific defect alleged is that the attempted transfers were made after the closing date of the securitized trust holding the pooled mortgages and therefore the transfers were ineffective.

In this appeal, the borrower contends the trial court erred by sustaining

defendants’ demurrer as to all of his causes of action attacking the nonjudicial

foreclosure.

Glaski argued that the investment trust that supposedly held his loan did not have the power to foreclose because his loan had never been properly transferred to the trust. The court of appeal held that this allegation was enough to state causes of action for wrongful foreclosure, declaratory relief, violation of the UCL, cancellation of instruments, and quiet title.

In particular, the court held: "We conclude that a borrower may challenge the securitized trust's claim to ownership by alleging the attempts to transfer the deed of trust to the securitized trust (which was formed under New York law) occurred after the trust's closing date. Transfers that violate the terms of the trust instrument are void under New York law, and borrowers have standing to challenge void assignments of their loans even though they are not a party to, or a third party beneficiary of, the assignment agreement." (Glaski v. Bank of America, slip opinion at page 3.)

The court then stated: "In Barrionuevo v. Chase Bank, N.A. (N.D. Cal. 2012) 885 F.Supp. 964, the district court stated: 'Several courts have recognized the existence of a valid cause of action for wrongful foreclosure where a party alleged not to be the true beneficiary instructs the trustee to file a Notice of Default and initiate nonjudicial foreclosure.' (Id., at p. 973). We agree with this statement of law, but believe that properly alleging a cause of action under this theory requires more than simply stating that the defendant who invoked the power of sale was not the true beneficiary under the deed of trust. Rather, a plaintiff asserting this theory must allege facts that show the defendant who invoked the power of sale was not the true beneficiary." (Glaski v. Bank of America, slip opinion at page 17; italics added.)

The court added: "We reject the view that a borrower's challenge to an assignment must fail once it is determined that the borrower was not a party to, or a third party beneficiary of, the assignment agreement." (Glaski v. Bank of America, slip opinion at page 19.)

Next, the court distinguished Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, 192 Cal.App.4th 1149 (2011): "In light of the limiting statements included in the Gomes opinion, we do not interpret it as barring claims that challenge a foreclosure based on specific allegations that an attempt to transfer the deed of trust was void. Our interpretation, which allows borrowers to pursue questions regarding the chain of ownership, is compatible with Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. . . ." (Glaski v. Bank of America, slip opinion at pages 24-25; italics added.)

Finally, the court disposed of the tender argument: "Tender is not required where the foreclosure sale is void, rather than voidable, such as when a plaintiff proves that the entity lacked the authority to foreclose on the property." (Glaski v. Bank of America, slip opinion at page 25.)

We therefore reverse the judgment of dismissal and remand for further proceedings... DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE DOCUMENT HERE (30 pages, PDF). 

 

Case Regarding Banks Standing

CASE

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Herbert N. Elesh (Illinois 2013)

Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2005 HE-3, has filed this suit to foreclose defendant’s mortgage. Defendant contends that plaintiff lacks standing to pursue this suit and asks the Court to dismiss it. Because defendant attacks the factual basis of plaintiff’s standing, rather than the sufficiency of its jurisdictional allegations, the Court can consider matters outside of the pleadings in deciding this motion. See Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 572 F.3d 440, 444 (7th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff, which has the burden of proof on this issue, has constitutional standing to pursue this suit only if it suffered a “concrete and particularized” injury that is traceable to defendant’s conduct and is likely to be redressed by a decision in its favor in this case. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).

With respect to that issue, plaintiff alleges that it owns the promissory note defendant gave to his lender, Decision One Mortgage Co., and thus has been injured by defendant’s failure to make the payments due under it. As proof of this contention, plaintiff attached to its complaint what it claims is a true copy of the promissory note bearing an indorsement in blank. However, the note attached to the complaint bears no indorsement whatsoever as the purported indorsement language is not signed by the original owner or anyone else. In response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, plaintiff submitted what it represents is a better copy of the original note. However, the “better Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Elesh Doc. 65 Dockets.Justia.com

The only evidence plaintiff offered at the hearing was the testimony of one witness from the servicer of the note, Ocwen Loan Servicing. The witness had no personal knowledge of whether, when or by whom the contested note was indorsed or any other aspect of the transactions underlying this suit. Moreover, her testimony that Ocwen has a practice of seeking indorsements for notes without them is vitiated by her belief that an indorsement is a rubber stamp of the phrase “pay to the order of” rather than a signature by the obligee of the note.

For these reasons and those stated in open court, the Court finds that plaintiff has failed to establish that: (1) the purported original promissory note is authentic; (2) the note was properly indorsed by an agent of the obligee; or (3) that, when plaintiff filed this suit, it possessed or owned the original promissory note. Because plaintiff has failed to establish that it was injured by defendant’s default on the note, it does not have standing to pursue this suit. Accordingly, the Court grants defendant’s motion to dismiss [40] and dismisses this suit for lack of subject matte jurisdiction. The Court strikes as moot defendant’s motion to strike [45] and plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment, to appoint a special commissioner and to reassign [51, 54 & 60]. SO ORDERED ENTER: May 21, 2013

HERBERT ELESH vs. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC  REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC…..

This leaves Count 5, in which Elesh challenges the assignment of the mortgage to Deutsche Bank. Defendants argue that Elesh is not a party to the assignment and thus lacks standing to challenge it. Only one of the cases upon which defendants rely, however, is an Illinois case, and that case makes it clear that this supposed “rule” has exceptions. See Bank of America Nat’l Ass’n v. Bassman FBT, LLC, No. 2-11-0729, 2012 IL App (2d) 110729, 981 N.E.2d 1, 6-11 (2012). The basic requirements of standing are that the plaintiff suffered an injury to a legally cognizable interest and is asserting his own legal rights rather than those of a third party. See id. at 6. Elesh unquestionably meets the first requirement; the recorded assignment constitutes a cloud on his title, and Deutsche Bank recently relied on the assignment to prosecute a foreclosure action against him. Elesh also has a viable argument that in challenging the validity of the assignment, he is asserting his own rights and not someone else’s rights. For example, given Deutsche Bank’s apparent lack of possession of the original note, Elesh is put at risk of multiple liability as long as Deutsche Bank claims to hold the mortgage. See id. at 7-8 (citing cases indicating that an obligor has an interest in  ensuring that he will not have to pay the same claim twice). In any event, Illinois law, to  the extent there is much of it on this point, appears to recognize an obligor’s right to  attack an assignment as void or invalid under certain circumstances. See id.   The Court is also inclined to believe that the right to bring a quiet title action – a right that Elesh, as title holder to the property, clearly enjoys – implies the ability to challenge the validity of instruments that constitute clouds on title.

An action to quiet title in property is an equitable proceeding in which a party seeks to remove a cloud on his title to the property. A cloud on title is the semblance of title, either legal or equitable, appearing in some legal form but which is, in fact, unfounded or which it would be inequitable to enforce. Various forms of documents which appeared valid on their face have been held to constitute clouds on title [including subsequent deeds, recorded mortgages, and forged deeds].

Gambino v. Boulevard Mortg. Corp., 398 Ill. App. 3d 21, 52, 922 N.E.2d 380, 410 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Deutsche Bank’s assignment, which it has recorded, arguably constitutes a cloud on Elesh’s title, thus enabling him to challenge it or at least seek its removal via a quiet title action.   For these reasons, the Court declines to dismiss Count 5.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST  v. JAMES L. GILBERT (IL 2nd Appellate 2012)

The plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, filed a foreclosure suit against the defendant, James L. Gilbert. Gilbert raised the affirmative defense that Deutsche Bank lacked standing at the time it filed the suit. Gilbert also filed a counterclaim alleging violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) (15 U.S.C. § 1601 (2006)) and seeking damages. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court initially found in favor of Gilbert on the issue of standing and dismissed the foreclosure. However, following Deutsche Bank’s filing of a motion for reconsideration, the trial court reversed itself and granted summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank on all claims. Gilbert appeals, arguing that the trial court’s initial decision was correct, and that he is also entitled to summary judgment in his favor on the counterclaim. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment of foreclosure and dismiss the cause, and affirm the dismissal of the counterclaim…

On March 10, 2008, Deutsche Bank filed a foreclosure action against Gilbert. In its complaint, it alleged that it was the current holder of the indebtedness. Copies of the note and the mortgage were attached to the complaint as exhibits.

On August 25, 2008, MERS (as nominee for WMC Mortgage) executed a document titled “Assignment of Mortgage” (Assignment). The Assignment stated that MERS, for certain consideration “the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,” “assigned and transferred” to Deutsche Bank, “as Trustee under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2005, GSAMP Trust 2005-WMC2,” all interests in Gilbert’s mortgage. On September 12, 2008, Deutsche Bank filed an amended complaint, attaching the Assignment as an exhibit. Gilbert filed an answer, raising the affirmative defense of lack of standing on the ground that the Assignment showed that Deutsche Bank did not own the indebtedness when it originally filed the foreclosure. Gilbert also filed a counterclaim…

…Deutsche Bank contended that it did have standing at the time it filed suit, because the Assignment simply memorialized an earlier transfer of interest. In support, it submitted an affidavit from William F. Loch, an employee of a company that serviced loans for Deutsche Bank, in which Loch averred that, based on his review of “the documents contained in the Gilbert loan file,” MERS assigned its interest to Deutsche Bank on November 1, 2005. Loch did not state how he knew that this was when the assignment occurred, and he did not attach any documentary evidence that the assignment had occurred on this date…

…As to the standing issue, it granted Gilbert’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the foreclosure, finding that Deutsche Bank was not the holder of the indebtedness at the time it filed the suit. The trial court noted Loch’s averment that Deutsche Bank was the holder on the date of filing, but found it “to be a legal conclusion and just because he says it does not make it so.” The trial court further noted that there was no document showing when the assignment took place….

Deutsche Bank filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the Assignment “clearly stated” that MERS assigned its interest to Deutsche Bank on November 1, 2005.

Standing to Bring the Foreclosure

The validity of Deutsche Bank’s foreclosure action against Gilbert rests on one issue: whether Deutsche Bank had standing—that is, whether it owned the mortgage—on the date that it filed the foreclosure action. There are no disputes about the relevant facts, and the issue is thus a purely legal one that was appropriate for disposition by summary judgment. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2008). We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Ioerger v. Halverson Construction Co., 232 Ill. 2d 196, 201 (2008).

“The doctrine of standing is designed to preclude persons who have no interest in a controversy from bringing suit.” Raintree Homes, Inc. v. Village of Long Grove, 209 Ill. 2d 248, 262 (2004). A party’s standing to sue must be determined as of the time the suit is filed. Village of Kildeer v. Village of Lake Zurich, 167 Ill. App. 3d 783, 786 (1988). “[A] party either has standing at the time the suit is brought or it does not.” Id. An action to foreclose upon a mortgage may be filed by a mortgagee, i.e., the holder of an indebtedness secured by a mortgage, or by an agent or successor of a mortgagee. See Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Barnes, 406 Ill. App. 3d 1, 7 (2010); see also 735 ILCS 5/15-1208, 15-1504(a)(3)(N) (West 2008). Lack of standing to bring an action is an affirmative defense, and the burden of proving the defense is on the party asserting it. Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, 237 Ill. 2d 217, 252 (2010).

Here, Gilbert raised the affirmative defense of lack of standing both in his answer and in his motion for summary judgment. To support his argument that on the date the foreclosure action was filed Deutsche Bank had no standing to sue him, Gilbert pointed to the note and the mortgage attached to the complaint, both of which identify the mortgagee as MERS—not Deutsche Bank.  Moreover, the Assignment attached to the amended complaint was dated August 25, 2008, and Gilbert argued that this showed that MERS did not assign its interest in the mortgage until several months after the foreclosure action was filed. We find that this evidence met Gilbert’s burden to show that Deutsche Bank lacked standing when the suit was filed, because the note and the mortgage identified the lender as WMC Mortgage and the holder of the mortgage as MERS. Deutsche Bank’s name does not appear on either of these documents. Thus, so far as the documents attached to the complaint establish, Gilbert was correct that Deutsche Bank did not own the indebtedness. As he made out a prima facie showing that Deutsche Bank lacked standing, the burden shifted to Deutsche Bank to refute this evidence or demonstrate a question of fact. Triple R Development, LLC v. Golfview Apartments I, L.P., 2012 IL App (4th) 100956, ¶ 12.

Deutsche Bank attempted to rebut this apparent lack of standing by pointing to the Assignment and the Loch affidavit. However, these items lack evidentiary value. Before the trial court, Deutsche Bank argued that the language of the Assignment established that the transfer of the mortgage had occurred years earlier, on November 1, 2005. On appeal, however, Deutsche Bank wisely abandons that argument (which finds no support in the actual language of the Assignment), and now concedes that the Assignment “does not establish anything about when Plaintiff [Deutsche Bank] obtained its interest in the subject loan.” We agree with this statement. Although the Assignment contains two dates—the date of the trust for which Deutsche Bank is a trustee, and the date on which the Assignment was executed and notarized—it does not explicitly state when the mortgage was assigned to Deutsche Bank. All that can be known about when the assignment took place is that it was no later than the date on which the Assignment was executed.

18 Instead, Deutsche Bank now relies solely on the Loch affidavit to refute the lack of standing shown by the note and the mortgage. Deutsche Bank points to Loch’s statement that the assignment occurred on November 1, 2005, and contends that his statement must be taken as true in the absence of contrary evidence. This legal principle applies only to admissible evidence, however. Complete Conference Coordinators, Inc. v. Kumon North America, Inc., 394 Ill. App. 3d 105, 108 (2009) (only admissible evidence may be considered in support of or opposition to summary judgment). Loch’s statement about the date of the assignment was not admissible, because it was unsupported by any foundation.

The use of affidavits on motions for summary judgment is governed by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 191(a) (eff. July 1, 2002). Under that rule, affidavits must set out the facts on which the affiant’s claims are based, and attach all documents upon which the affiant relies. Loch, however, did not state how he knew that the assignment took place on November 1, 2005, and he failed to attach any documents supporting his assertion. (As we noted, the Assignment itself provides no support for Loch’s assertion.) Accordingly, Loch’s statement about the date of the assignment does not comply with Rule 191(a) and may be disregarded. Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90, 132 (1992) (unsupported conclusions and opinions were insufficient to raise an issue of fact); Madden v. Paschen/S.N. Nielson, Inc., 395 Ill. App. 3d 362, 388 (2009) (legal conclusions and unsupported statements were properly stricken). Disregarding Loch’s unsupported statement, the sole evidence that Deutsche Bank ever became the holder of the indebtedness was the Assignment and, as Deutsche Bank concedes, that document does not establish when Deutsche Bank became the holder.

Deutsche Bank argues that, because lack of standing is an affirmative defense, Gilbert bears the burden of proving that it did not own the loan on the date that Deutsche Bank filed the foreclosure. This, of course, is true. U.S. Bank National Ass’n v. Sauer, 392 Ill. App. 3d 942, 946 (2009). However, Gilbert’s documentary evidence that Deutsche Bank did not own the loan (the mortgage and the note, and an assignment executed after the date of filing) constituted prima facie evidence of lack of standing. “ ‘A “prima facie” defense is sufficient at law unless and until rebutted by other evidence.’ ” Cordeck Sales, Inc. v. Construction Systems, Inc., 382 Ill. App. 3d 334, 366 (2008) (quoting Darling & Co. v. Pollution Control Board, 28 Ill. App. 3d 258, 264 (1975)).  Deutsche Bank also argues that its standing to bring the action was established by its complaint, which alleged that it was the holder of the indebtedness and attached copies of the note and the mortgage. See Barnes, 406 Ill. App. 3d at 6 (a plaintiff sufficiently pleads a cause of action for foreclosure if it alleges that it holds the mortgage and attaches a copy of the note and the mortgage).  However, the attached note and mortgage did not show that Deutsche Bank owned the loan, and thus they contradicted Deutsche Bank’s allegation that it did own the loan when it filed the suit. Burton v. Airborne Express, Inc., 367 Ill. App. 3d 1026, 1034 (2006) (“Exhibits are a part of the complaint to which they are attached,” and facts contained within an exhibit serve to negate inconsistent allegations contained within the body of the complaint). Moreover, it is well established that a party may not rely on the allegations of its pleadings to contradict evidence produced by the movant that would entitle it to judgment. Triple R Development, 2012 IL App (4th) 100956, ¶ 12. As Deutsche Bank produced no competent evidence rebutting Gilbert’s prima facie showing that the bank lacked standing at the time of filing, Gilbert was entitled to summary judgment in his favor on this issue.

In a last-ditch effort to avoid this result, Deutsche Bank argues that section 2-407 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-407 (West 2008)), which allows the joinder of necessary parties after the commencement of a suit, protects against the dismissal of its complaint for lack of standing. Deutsche Bank argues that its amendment of the complaint, which attached the recently executed Assignment, acted as a “joinder” of itself in a new capacity—as the now-undisputed owner of the loan. Not surprisingly, Deutsche Bank is unable to point to any case law supporting such a novel application of section 2-407 to cure a plaintiff’s lack of standing. To the contrary, standing must exist when the suit is filed. Village of Kildeer, 167 Ill. App. 3d at 786. As Deutsche Bank lacked standing at the time of filing, the foreclosure action was defective ab initio and Deutsche Bank could not cure this defect by “joining” the suit as a proper party at a later date.

In summary, Gilbert was entitled to judgment in his favor on the foreclosure, because Deutsche Bank lacked standing to bring that foreclosure. Bayview Loan Servicing, L.L.C. v. Nelson, 382 Ill. App. 2d 1184, 1186 (2008). We note that, although there is little case law on this specific issue in Illinois, our sister courts in New York have held repeatedly that, unless an assignment of a mortgage is executed prior to the date on which the foreclosure action is filed, the assignee lacks standing to bring the foreclosure and the action should be dismissed, even where the assignment was executed only a few months after the complaint was filed. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Marchione, 887 N.Y.S.2d 615, 619 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009); LaSalle Bank National Ass’n v. Ahearn, 875 N.Y.S.2d 595, 597 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). Other states have taken a similar approach. “It is a fundamental precept of the law to expect a foreclosing party to actually be in possession of its claimed interest in the note, and to have the proper supporting documentation on hand when filing suit, *** so that the defendant is duly apprised of the rights of the plaintiff.” U.S. Bank National Ass’n v. Baber, 2012 OK 55, ¶ 6, 280 P.2d 956; see also Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A. v. Rouleau, 2012 VT 19, ¶ 16, 46 A.3d 905; Davenport v. HSBC Bank USA, 739 N.W.2d 383, 385 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) (foreclosure must be vacated where bank “did not yet own the indebtedness that it sought to foreclose"). We see no flaws in this reasoning. Accordingly, the order granting Deutsche Bank’s motion for reconsideration and entering judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank must be reversed, the judgment of foreclosure and the order confirming the sale must be vacated, and the foreclosure must be dismissed.

NOTE: Affidavits of corporate officers do not hold the same authority as those of private parties. An affidavit of a corporate officer must be supported with supporting documents. At the time of their filing, they must be in possession of all pertinent documents or they do not have standing. Assignment = legal process in which beneficial interest is transferred from one party to another

Creating a Verified Record as Admissible Evidence!

Creating a Verified Record as Admissible Evidence!

If you are going to file a civil claim or suit against the the bank, in a pending or pre-foreclosure process, you better have proof in the form of verified evidence that your claim is valid. If the bank is filing the claim (as the plaintiff), they have the burden of proof.

You can ensure that the burden of proof remains with the bank, regardless of who files the initial claim! This is done by creating a Record that is admissible as evidence.

The Administrative Processes are being completed right now. You can register now at this time.

Please contact me with any questions that you have regarding the enrollment process, and I will be happy to answer them for you. Contact Greg at 808-969-8188 or Email Me