ANTICIPATING DEBTOR’S CHALLENGES AND WITHSTANDING LITIGATION

Via: Brian Davies

GREAT LOOK AT THE BANKS WAY OF TRYING TO GET AROUND THE BANKRUPTCY. HERE IS THE WAY THEY LOOK AT THE ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS. NOTE THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENTS ARE IMPORTANT. IT ALSO SCREWS THEM WHEN THEY TRY TO TRANSFER AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE TRUST.

[ipaper docId=36801375 access_key=key-1gd8wpuuku9gainunkxb height=600 width=600 /]

Via: b.daviesmd6605

The assignment Wells Fargo did for Deutsche Bank. Note on the assignment it says, ” Wells Fargo N.A. Attorney-in-fact for New Century Mortgage Corporation” — this violated California Civil Code 1095. It is suppose to say, “New Century Mortgage Corporation, by Wells Fargo N.A. as Attorney In Fact”

California Civil Code says Civil Code Section 1095 says, ” “When an attorney in fact executes an instrument transferring an estate in real property, he must subscribe the name of his principal to it, and his own name as attorney in fact.”

There is a case, Hodge v. Hodge, 257 Cal. App. 2d 31 (1967), which says that if this is not followed exactly, the transfer is void. And obviously the judge agreed (thank goodness).

They don’t have a power of attorney to go with this assignment either! In discovery they gave us one that was done three months after the assignment; and six months after the NOD.

[ipaper docId=30455767 access_key=key-18e29jr634qn1gwy27o8 height=600 width=600 /]

• CCC 1095 When an attorney in fact executes an instrument transferring an estate in real property, they must subscribe the name of his principal to it, and his own name as attorney in fact.

Plaintiff correctly asserts that this assignment is invalid for the reason it violates CC § 1095, in that it was executed solely by BANK 1 as attorney-in-fact for BANK X, without subscribing BANK 1 name. See Morrison v. Bowman (1865) 29 Cal. 337, 341, 352; Mitchell v. Benjamin Franklin Bond & Indem. Corp. (1936) 13 Cal.App.2d 447, 448.