Ibanez Case Supreme Court Ruling Jan 2011

Here is the AFFIRMED decision…

Ibanez Case Supreme Court Ruling Jan 2011

Die Banker Die




21 Responses to “Ibanez Case Supreme Court Ruling Jan 2011”
  1. Mark says:

    This is all bull-shit on the part of US Bank (BanCorp) and Wells Farge, they are all in bed with each other and the servicers too, No securitization trust, No rights to do anything, but what would they be saying if they won,
    it would be pay us.

  2. DanJS says:

    Is it “normal” for such an important decision to generate so little internet attention for several days after this kind of legal precedent is established?

    • indio007 says:

      This isn’t exactly a legal precedent. In fact they say so in the case,
      “A prospective ruling is only appropriate, in limited circumstances, when we make a
      significant change in the common law. We have not done so here.
      The legal principles and requirements we set forth are well established in our case law
      and our statutes. All that has changed is the plaintiffs’ apparent failure to abide by those principles and requirements in the rush to sell mortgage-backed securities. ”

      This is all well settled law.

  3. Millie says:

    We have U.S. Bank National Association in our case, too! I do hope the Ibanez case will help us here in CA! CA is a “lien” state and MA is a “title” state, so we don’t know if this case will help us in ours. It is so awesome that the Ibanez case was won by the homeowners! Its about time!

  4. indio007 says:

    Something I’ve discovered. This especially relates to the dumb-ass Florida judge PETER BLANC that said ““We are supposed to act on things brought to our attention, but if no one files anything, I’m not sure what will or should happen.”

    The Massachusetts Land Court inquired into this SUA SPONTE!!!!! The judge did it on his own via his own motion!


  5. bert says:

    1 Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds! when the morning is light, they practise it, because it is in the power of their hand.
    2 And they covet fields, and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away: so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage.
    3 Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, against this family do I devise an evil, from which ye shall not remove your necks; neither shall ye go haughtily: for this time is evil.


  6. kravitz says:

    Ah, denial is a spectator sport.

    Wells Fargo Comments on Massachusetts Supreme Court Ruling

    “The loans at issue in the court’s ruling were not originated, owned, serviced or foreclosed upon by Wells Fargo. As trustee of a securitized pool of loans, Wells Fargo expects the entities who service these loans to abide by all applicable state laws, including those laws that govern foreclosure sales.

    Wells Fargo believes the court’s ruling does not prevent foreclosures on loans in securitizations. The court simply set forth a standard legal process that mortgage servicers must follow in Massachusetts.”

    So, uh, if Wells Fargo didn’t foreclose on the defendants, then, um… who did, and put Wells’ name on it?

    And oh, if other states adopt the Mass standard, which is weaker than the New York Trust Law standard, how are banks less screwed?

    • indio007 says:

      I guess the court was lying when they said.

      “On the same day, Wells
      Fargo, as trustee, foreclosed on the mortgage of Mark and
      Tammy LaRace, and purchased the LaRace property at that
      foreclosure sale. ”

      It seems they are setting up their legal defense for the coming onslaught of litigation.

      • kravitz says:

        US Bancorp wants some of that. Both banks are basically saying in their press releases that their sloppiness is not their fault. Just whose, they ain’t sayin’.

        My favorite part of this one?


        U.S. Bancorp Statement on Massachusetts Supreme Court Ruling

        “Our role in this case is solely as trustee for a securitization trust that owned the mortgage at issue. U.S. Bank is not the originator, owner or servicer of the loan in question, nor is it the sponsor or depositor for the securitization trust. The foreclosure in question was conducted by the servicer on behalf of, and in the name of, the securitization trust. That is the only reason our name appears in this case. As trustee, U.S. Bank has no responsibility for the terms of the underlying mortgage, foreclosure procedure, the conduct of the servicer, the process by which the mortgage is transferred to the trust, or the sufficiency of the mortgage documentation.”

  7. Lit Gant says:

    This was a very good opinion. The decision of the judges will allow defense attorneys better write their motions to dismiss and or to strike. May give other judges around the nation something to think about when they make decisions in their state. The very idea that a note endorsed in blank conveys ownership to unnamed persons or entities, is in this case denied. Each and every assignment must be on the back of the note. This is what I read in this decision. How that applies to Florida is another question. I would think Florida would have a similar law. Whatever the case in Florida, I think I can see the sun beginning to shine. For thousands of home owners this is not the sunshine state, it has become the homeless-shine state. Florida judges can thank themselves that they made Florida the homeless capital of the nation. Now, it is time for some good decisions by the Florida judaicary. Ok, judges show us your American red blood and start handling foreclosures by the rule of law.

  8. J says:

    Plus, In ‘true-sale’, ‘disguised loan’ and ‘assignment’ securitizations, are fraudulent transactions which serve as ‘predicate acts’ under US Federal R.I.C.O. statutes. Furthermore, securitization constitutes violation of American antitrust statutes through market integration, syndicate collusion, price formation, vertical foreclosure, tying, price-fixing, predatory pricing, and the rigging of allocations.Collateral-substitution agreements contain a promise whereby the sponsor agrees to substitute impaired collateral. An assignment agreement of future (not yet existing) collateral may well be deemed a unilateral executory promise by the sponsor. Illusory promises are not valid consideration for a contract. Such promises may be found in the Subscription/Purchase Agreement, whereby an existing asset is being exchanged for a future asset that does not exist as of the date of the subscription/purchase agreement. the lack of mutuality characterizing such contracts renders them null and void, by definition. In any such contract, each party must have firm control of the subject matter of the contract and the underlying assets (consideration), and there MUST be a direct contractual relationship between the parties concerned. In addition to their multiple violations of the US usury laws, all ‘true-sale’, ‘disguised loan’ and ‘assignment securitizations’ are essentially tax evasion The sponsor typically retains a ‘residual’ interest in the SPV in the form of IOYs, POs and “junior piece”, which are typically taxed differently and on a different tax-basis compared with the original collateral: hence, the sponsor can lower the price of the collateral upon transfer to its offshore Special Purpose Vehicle and convert what would have been capital gains, into a non-taxable basis in the SPV “residual.Before securitization, collateral is typically reported in the sponsors’ financial statements at book value (that is, lower-of-cost-or-market: under both the US and the international accounting standards, loans and accounts receivable are typically not re-valued to market-value unless there has been some major impairment in value) which does not reflect true Market Values, and results in effective tax evasion on transfer of the collateral to the SPV, as any unrealized gain is not taxed.Also,In all instances where securitization usurps the United States’ bankruptcy laws and is therefore illegal on such a basis alone.

  9. indio007 says:

    The concurring opinoin fires a warning shot… I like it.

    “What is more complicated, and not addressed in this opinion,
    because the issue was not before us, is the effect of the conduct
    of banks such as the plaintiffs here, on a bona fide third-party
    purchaser who may have relied on the foreclosure title of the
    bank and the confirmative assignment and affidavit of foreclosure
    recorded by the bank subsequent to that foreclosure but prior to
    the purchase by the third party, especially where the party
    whose property was foreclosed was in fact in violation of the
    mortgage covenants, had notice of the foreclosure, and took no
    action to contest it.”

    This judge uses 200 words to say . We are about to be in even deeper shit” You are creating liability for every actors!”

    No one has a duty to respond to a false claim so all the acts that lead up to the third party sale are a naked trespass.

    What happens when the foreclosed party and the buyer get together to exact justice? The STATE pays big time!

  10. Stupendous Man - Defender of Liberty - Foe of Tyranny says:

    When seconds count the police are just minutes away!!

    And then there are the Florida Warriors in the fight against foreclosure fraud. Modern Super Heroes!!

    I greatly appreciate your efforts and offer a hat tip for your tireless work and timely notifications!!

  11. Hell NO - No More Bailouts says:

    So, will CA ever rule the same way that MA has?

    We have lots of examples of the assignments not complying with the PSAs and also being generated after the NOS.

    Now, in cases where a BK was filed after the NOS was advertised and posted, stopping the actual sale, the fact that the assignment is filed during the BK is even more repugnant, since no such action should be allowed during a BK, let alone trying to do the assignment after the property would have otherwise have sold.

    So will we ever see this like-case go to the appelate or CA Supreme court?

  12. mike says:

    Ok so now what, my home is going up for sheriff sale on 01/24/2011 in Ohio with 7 pages of others facing the same problem. What can all of these people do now. Stark County Ohio

    • Craig Kirk says:

      I went through the same thing back in 2000. I never answered the complaint never filed for discovery, never moved the court for any hearings, but instead internally off the record submitted legal briefs with a well staffed well known Ohio Law firm up north a little ways. Well from my pleadings presented to the bank a brand new shiny two toned green payment book starting at zero was offered to me. Now that Ohio Ag Richard Cordray got the US. Supreme Court to amend the statue of limitations FOR security’s fraud, but don’t worry you still have time to fight for your God Given rights to own property in Ohio. Hey everyone knows now from this web site you know the Bank loves defaults because they know one out of every 100.000.00 cant figure out or cant afford to stop or reverse the adverse decisions against you the home owner taking your property using fraud to get-r-done. Now the picture is more clear why I do what I do.. I had the pleasure of researching a case for 385.000.00 or so thanks to NCLC. ORG & MICHIE on banks Ohio Jurisprudence CJS ect an action in Delaware, Ohio commenced the court administratively dismissed out 5 creditors including behind the scenes devil Chase Bank with a little trick called a bank routing number request surprise surprise. So the law in Ohio is fair just and good for the people. One practice I love and study is void judgments Ohio land titles with defects. One student went to a Sheriffs sale and raised all kinds of fuss peacefully which had the legal effect of detouring all buyers including the bank thanks to the FBI. He had my research on disc I loaned him for study purposes which I never new he used untill after the sale he did this theater play that took place. One must understand paper work with words having sufficient legal standing meaning has a very powerful way to get peoples attention including government. He moved to cloud the title and went on to win his case with an injunction and TRO, yell from what I was told this set the stage for a real vacated judgment. The student settled with the bank then turned around and sued the law firm for Attorney malpractice I SO SORRY FOR YOUR LUCK. LAW FIRM. So there is much that may be done to win the game at any stage. It isn’t over till you want it over. A defect on the record is still a defect on the record which violates international but Federal State CIVIL OR CRIMINAL law and RULES as well. God still blessing America. Check out Blog Talk Radio SEARCH FOR QUI TAM RADIO REPORT
      Craig Kirk
      ( want more information send me an email!!!!! )

Leave a Reply