Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Here the court finally brings US Bank (and others like Deutsch etc) to task about their positions
as “Trustees” and makes the distinction between the alleged “Trust” who IS the Plaintiff (if
properly described) and the alleged “Trustee” who is NOT the Plaintiff. That distinction throws
off the entire narrative the banks are pursuing. everyone thinks they are dealing with US Bank
when in fact they are dealing with the rust. The insertion of US Bank as a Trustee in name only
can now be attacked with the winds of precedent behind you.
The nut cracked when the Court considered the question of whether US Bank had any
duties, obligations, control or even knowledge. A negative answer to all of those questions
would result in a finding that they were not a Trustee, and that the “property” (loans) were
never entrusted to them or any other trustee, thus defeating the very existence of a trust and any
claims for REMIC tax treatment, as well as claims for exemption under SEC Registration rulers.
The problem for the banks — all the major ones — was that the documents upon which they
relied to establish the Trust specifically prohibit the Trustee from exercising any control, or even
asking questions about “trust assets (their existence or status) thus establishing an unknown third
party who has been anointed by the Master Servicer with the job of acting as “subservicer.”
Getting lost in the weeds many thousands of pro se litigants and foreclosure defense attorneys
have missed the obvious, to wit: there is no trust without a COMPLETE trust
instrument, a trustor, beneficiaries and PROPERTY that is
entrusted to the trustee thus forming the physical existence of the
trust as opposed to the hypothetical existence of a trust that exists
only on paper (if in fact the Pooling and Servicing Agreement was fully executed and all
the exhibits were attached (including the MLS- Mortgage loan schedule).
That was mere dicta. The nut cracked over the diversity issue and federal subject matter
jurisdiction. The opinion can be read here: https://ecf.nynd.uscourts.gov/doc1/12514400976.
no, it doesn’t leave the homeowner in limbo…the homeowner can now bring a quiet title
action.