Comments on: Ibanez Case Supreme Court Ruling Jan 2011

By: indio007

indio007 — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 02:29:57 +0000

In reply to DanJS.

This isn’t exactly a legal precedent. In fact they say so in the case,
QUOTE:
“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.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 21:46:03 +0000

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.

By: DanJS

DanJS — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 10:42:19 +0000

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?

By: indio007

indio007 — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 05:27:26 +0000

In reply to Millie.

According to this website California is a title theory state.
This site maps all the states for “title vs. lien”
http://title.grabois.com/

By: JM

JM — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 04:56:14 +0000

In reply to Millie. It will. We are using it in CA as well. Both non-judicial.

By: Millie

Millie — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 02:49:20 +0000

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!

By: indio007

indio007 — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 21:05:04 +0000

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!

NO MORE EXC– USES FROM THE POOR EXC– USE FOR JUDGES

By: kravitz

kravitz — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 18:05:41 +0000

In reply to indio007.

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?

“THAT IS THE ONLY REASON OUR NAME APPEARS…”

U.S. Bancorp Statement on Massachusetts Supreme Court Ruling
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=117565&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1514252&highlight=

“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.”

By: mike

mike — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 14:14:23 +0000

In reply to Craig Kirk.

Craig Kirk what is your email address you told me to email you but was not on blog

mine is mike@cleanresources.net

By: Diana

Diana — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 09:20:50 +0000

In reply to bert. Praise the Lord. Good passage from the sure Word of God!