IN RE: SALDIVAR | Texas USBC: Order DENYING M-T-D . . . Debtor's Objections to Creditor's Standing - JP MORGAN CHASE whipped by SECURITIZATION FAIL

Saldivar v. Chase | Texas USBC: Order DENYING M-T-D . . . Debtor’s Objections to Creditor’s Standing – JP MORGAN CHASE whipped by SECURITIZATION FAIL

Saldivar v. Chase | Texas USBC: Order DENYING M-T-D . . . Debtor’s Objections to Creditor’s Standing – JP MORGAN CHASE whipped by SECURITIZATION FAIL

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

IN RE:
GILBERTO SALDIVAR, SANDRA
CANALES SALDIVAR,

CHAPTER 13

Debtor(s). JUDGE ISGUR

GILBERTO T SALDIVAR, et al
Plaintiff(s),
vs.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al
Defendant(s).

MEMORANDUM OPINION

EXCERPT:

Standing

As a threshold matter, the Court must first address Chase and Deutsche Bank’s assertion that
the Saldivars lack standing to challenge the validity of the assignment of their mortgage to the Trust.
A. Under New York Trust Law, is an ultra vires act void or merely voidable?
A third party generally lacks standing to challenge the validity of an assignment. Bank of
American Nat’l Assoc. v. Bassman FBT, L.L.C., et al. 981 N.E.2d 1, 7 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). A
borrower may however raise a defense to an assignment, if that defense renders the assignment void.

[…]

N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law § 7-2.4.The Bassman court holds that despite the plain
language of § 7-2.4, under various circumstances a trustee’s ultra vires acts are voidable and not
void. Bassman, 981 N.E.2d. at 9. The Bassman court cites New York cases that hold that
beneficiaries of a trust can ratify a trustee’s ultra vires acts. See Gregan v. Buchanan, et al, 37
N.Y.S. 83, 85 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1896); see also Hine v. Huntington, et al. 103 N.Y.S. 535, 540 (N.Y.
App. Div. 1907); Birnbaum v. Birnbaum, et al., 503 N.Y.S.2d 451 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986). The
Bassman court holds that the ability to ratify a trustee’s ultra vires act is equivalent to finding that a
trustee’s ultra vires act is merely voidable and not void.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1652, this Court has the duty to apply New York law in accordance with
the controlling decision of the highest state court. Royal Bank of Canada v. Trentham Corp., 665
F.2d 515, 516 (5th Cir. 1981). While the Court finds no applicable New York Court of Appeals
decision, a recent New York Supreme Court decision is factually similar to the case before the Court.
See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Erobobo, et al., 2013 WL 1831799 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. April 29, 2013). In
Erobobo, defendants argued that plaintiff (a REMIC trust) was not the owner of the note because
plaintiff obtained the note and mortgage after the trust had closed in violation of the terms of the PSA
governing the trust, rendering plaintiff’s acquisition of the note void. Id. at *2. The Erobobo court
held that under § 7-2.4, any conveyance in contravention of the PSA is void; this meant that
acceptance of the note and mortgage by the trustee after the date the trust closed rendered the transfer
void. Id. at 8.

Based on the Erobobo decision and the plain language of N.Y. Est. Powers & Trusts Law
§ 7-2.4, the Court finds that under New York law, assignment of the Saldivars’ Note after the start up
day is void ab initio. As such, none of the Saldivars’ claims will be dismissed for lack of standing.
The Court expresses no view on the effect of any subsequent ratification, if any. It is sufficient that a
claim has been stated.

[…]

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8752 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

3 Responses to “Saldivar v. Chase | Texas USBC: Order DENYING M-T-D . . . Debtor’s Objections to Creditor’s Standing – JP MORGAN CHASE whipped by SECURITIZATION FAIL”

  1. Ronald Williams says:

    The foreclosure frauds are now being practiced with the full knowledge and cooperation of the courts. I litigated clear to the United States Supreme Court. (writ denied without comment) The petition exposed the federal judge for deliberately falsifying his Order by stated that loan documents had been made part of the Record that conveys standing for Chase Bank to enforce our note between me and Washington Mutual Bank. The judge falsified the Order out of frustration because Chase simply could not produce any documents establishing standing. The Ninth Circuit resolved my appeal while passing over the issue of the judge’s fraudulent order. No where in the opinion is our pleading and proof of the fraud is even mentioned. The Case? Ronald Williams vs JPMorgan Chase Bank et al, USDC Nev. 2:10-cv-00118 PMP-PAL; USDC 9th Case No. 10-16102 and USSC No. 12-159. The judge’s fraud and the cover up is conspicuous. You need only review our opening brief and the 9th circuit disposition to realize the cover up. Cannot do nothing about this – we are just ordinary citizens. But in the meantime, due to the new law in Nevada, Chase cannot and will not enforce our note by a trustee sale. rnwil3@aol.com

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. […] Salivadar V. JP MORGAN DROPS A BOMB SHELL On Pretender-Lender! Share this:TwitterFacebookGoogleTumblrGoogle+ Derrick BrownLike this:Like Loading… […]


Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives