AZ AG File Amicus Brief Favoring Homeowners

Posted on September 2, 2011 by Neil Garfield

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

 GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

SEE AZ AG Amicus Vasquez 8-2011 (1)

CASE IS SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON SEPTEMBER 22, 20011 IN TUCSON, AZ. CONTRARY TO RUMOR, DO NOT EXPECT A RULING FROM THE COURT ON THAT DATE. THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA WILL TAKE AS MUCH TIME AS IT NEEDS TO MAKE THE DECISION.

JUDGE HOLLOWELL HAS CERTIFIED TWO QUESTIONS ESSENTIAL TO THE OUT COME OF HUNDRED OF THOUSANDS OF FORECLOSURE CASES. ATTORNEY GENERAL THOMAS C HORNE HAS SUBMITTED AN AMICUS (FRIEND OF THE COURT) BRIEF ADVOCATING A FAVORABLE RESULT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE TITLE SYSTEM, THE MARKETPLACE AND BORROWERS.

The case is Julia Vasquez v Deutsch Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Saxon Asset Securities Trust 2005-3; Saxon Mortgage, Inc., and Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. Supreme Court Case No CV 11-0091-CQ, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Case No: 4:08-bk-15510-EWH. Assisting in the writing of the Amicus Brief were Carolyn R. Matthews, Esq., Dena R. Epstein, Esq., and Donnelly A. Dybus, Esq..

In a a very well -written and well reasoned brief, the Arizona Attorney general takes and stand and makes a very persuasive case contrary to the tricks and shell games of the pretender lenders. It also addresses head-on the contention that that a negative ruling to the banks will cause financial disaster. Just as we have been saying for years here on these pages, the AG makes short shrift of that argument. And the AG takes the bank to task on their “spin” that stopping the foreclosures will have a chilling effect on the housing market and therefore the economy. The absurdity of both positions is exposed for what they are — naked aggression and greed justifying the means to defraud and corrupt the entire housing market, financial industry and the whole of the consumer buying base in this and other countries.

Of particular note is the detailed discussion in the Amicus Brief regarding the recordation of interests in real property. While the brief does not directly attach perfection of liens that violate the provisions of Arizona Statutes, the implications are clear: If the public record does not contain adequate disclosure as to the identity of the interested parties, the document is neither properly recorded, nor is the party seeking to enforce such a document entitled to use that document as though it had been recorded.

The use of a double nominee method of identifying the straw-man beneficiary (usually MERS) and a straw-man “lender” (usually the mortgage originator  that was acting only as a conduit or broker) leaves the public without any knowledge as to the identities of the real parties in interest. In the case of a mortgage lien, if it is impossible to know the identity of the party who can satisfy the lien, then the lien is not perfected. The same reasoning holds true with any other document required to be recorded, to wit:  

PUBLIC POLICY OF ARIZONA AGAINST FORECLOSURES: The AG also meets head on the obvious bias in the courts in which the assumption is made that that it is somehow better for society to speed along the foreclosures. Not so, says the AG:

Spread the word

Like this:

Like

Be the first to like this post.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor,Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: | amicus, ARIZONA, assignment, attorney general,bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, Deutsch, disclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure defense,foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, horne, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, quiet title,recordation, rescission, RESPA, Saxon, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, Vasquez, WEISBAND

« Window Dressing: File a Lawsuit — Maybe It will Improve the View

1. 

   Alice, on September 2, 2011 at 10:45 am said:

   I was reading this brief and agreeing and then I got to page 26. They are saying this problem will not affect the title if all the rules regarding assignments and foreclosures are followed and everything will be just fine. Not true. The title is clouded forever. I have looked at the Deeds on a few foreclosures and they are ‘special’ deeds and some go so far as to spell out that the seller is not responsible for prior title problems. On gse sales they don’t even require title insurance. ‘Buyers beware’ if you are buying a foreclosed home. Why did Az put this in this brief. Telling people it’s okay to buy a f/c when common sense tells one it is not. The clouded title issue is not going away.


2. 

   carie, on September 2, 2011 at 10:39 am said:

   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/02/heath-risks-economy_n_946607.html

   This is WHY the G**DAMN “GREAT LIE” constitutes CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY…not to mention civil as well as HUMAN rights violations…
   ILLEGAL foreclosures…every one of them…and the American people are STILL being lied to…


3. 

   carie, on September 2, 2011 at 10:19 am said:

   re-posting…because I can and I care…

   I AM NOT A LAWYER, BUT THIS IS GOOD STUFF:

   “…The Depositor owns the Trust — and while the Trust was performing – the Depositor, on behalf of the Trust would be the party to bring the action. However, these Trusts have now been brought back on parent corp. (to Depositor) balance sheets because the Trusts as “off-balance sheet” SPVs — have been effectively dissolved. The only tranche holders to remnants of the Trusts is the US Government or the Depositor (parent) itself. You should be preparing to demonstrate that the loan was not validly conveyed to any Trust (which they were not). Do this by requesting the Mortgage Schedule which should accompany the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement (MLPA) — and the MLPA cannot be an “intent” to sell — it must be validly executed and notarized (we know about those notaries). And, importantly, if MLPA and Mortgage Schedule can be proven, servicer must prove that all default payments have been paid to the trust on borrower’s behalf. If not, loan has been removed from the Trust with collection rights sold/swapped to a Third Party. This is how you may win — they can not prove anything.”


4. 

   Enraged, on September 2, 2011 at 10:10 am said:

   OMG! From breakthrough to breakthrough! I knew it! I knew we would see more and more people in power demand justice for all of us. This is just all good. And that has been my main argument from the very beginning when my servicer begged me to modify my mortgage, after having turned me down a few times because I wasn’t behind on my payments: “Prove to me that you have that legal authority to modify anything and we’ll talk, because as far as I’m concerned, the previous servicers never released my mortgage after my refinancing(s) and MERS still shows active loans left and right, dating back from before I even bought my house. To top it off, you don’t exist anywhere on my loan and especially not in the recorder’s docs. So, commit to extinguish every singe one of those “active” loans with hold harmless and indemnification agreements in due form and I’ll consider modifying. And, by the way, until you do prove that you are legally entitled to it, don’t count on receiving one more penny from me! And, come to think of it, I’ve been paying you for a few years, you’ve screwed me out of thousands and thousands of dollars in fees. I want my money back! All of it. And the house too, since you can’t take it!”

   It’s been almost a year and… no one has tried to foreclose on me.


5. 

   carie, on September 2, 2011 at 10:10 am said:

   M.Kieth—you mean this?:

   http://livinglies.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/az-ag-amicus-vasquez-8-2011-1.pdf


6. 

   BSE, on September 2, 2011 at 9:45 am said:

   About dam time !


7. 

   M. KEITH, on September 2, 2011 at 9:43 am said:

   NOTHING HERE TO REPLY TO. WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE TO READ THE POST.

Related articles

• AHA files Supreme Court amicus brief opposing employment discrimination law exemption for religious organizations (secularnewsdaily.com)


• AHA Files Amicus Brief with the Supreme Court Opposing Exemption for Religious Organizations from Employment Discrimination Laws (americanhumanist.org)


• Educators File Amicus in Alabama Case (lawprofessors.typepad.com)


• High Court Considers H&C Brief in Landmark Bilski Ruling (prweb.com)


• Norris Amicus Brief Filed (lawprofessors.typepad.com)


• Forced DNA Collection Without Search Warrant Violates Privacy Rights (eff.org)


• Notable comments from Justice Ginsburg concerning her work on the Court (sentencing.typepad.com)


• U.S. Supreme Court: FELA Remains Unchanged (prweb.com)


• The trials of McKenna (ridenbaugh.com)


• Supreme Court upholds AG's authority to pursue health care challenge (pnwlocalnews.com)