Cashmere Valley Bank v Dept of Revenue | WA Supreme Court - Cashmere's investments were not backed by any encumbrance on property nor did Cashmere have any legal recourse to the underlying trust assets in the event of default...

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Cashmere Valley Bank v Dept of Revenue | WA Supreme Court – Cashmere’s investments were not backed by any encumbrance on property nor did Cashmere have any legal recourse to the underlying trust assets in the event of default…

Cashmere Valley Bank v Dept of Revenue | WA Supreme Court – Cashmere’s investments were not backed by any encumbrance on property nor did Cashmere have any legal recourse to the underlying trust assets in the event of default…

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

CASHMERE VALLEY BANK,
Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
Respondent.

EXCERPT:

“We hold that Cashmere cannot claim the deduction because its investments in
REMICs and CMOs were not “primarily secured” by first mortgages or trust deeds.
Cashmere’s investments in REMICs and CMOs gave it the right to receive defined
income streams from a pool of mortgages, trust deeds, and mortgage-backed
securities, held in trust for investors. The ultimate source of cash flow was mortgage
payments. However, Cashmere’s investments were not backed by any encumbrance
on property nor did Cashmere have any legal recourse to the underlying trust assets
in the event of default. Thus, Cashmere’s investments were not “primarily secured”
by mortgages or trust deeds.”

[…]

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 8690 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

Leave a Reply

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

Archives