HUGE Ruling Against Bank of America MERS bank foreclosure in Washington State (non-Judicial) - Judge: FORECLOSURES ILLEGAL/UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Give this information to your Lawyer!
Update 2/15/14 - I spoke to Scott Stafne about the ruling. We will be getting together and taping a conversation this coming week. I will put it up after we have done so.
This is HUGE RULING against Bank of America, a MERS bank in Washington State.
The judge ruled the BOA MERS foreclosure was not legal in anyway. He also set it up where the person foreclosed on can get monetary damages from BOA in a trial.
This information and ruling was in a non-judicial foreclosure state.
The attorney in Washington State who handles illegal foreclosures and who won this case is
Scott E. Stafne
Stafne Trumbull, LLC
239 North Olympic Avenue
Arlington, WA 98223
ph# 360-403-8700
The pdf of the Judges ruling is here.
portion from ruling:
There was no evidence that MERS was ever the owner or holder of the note. Hence,
under the Bain decision, MERS could not have been the beneficiary. Bain left open the issue of
whether MERS could act as an agent of the lender or trustee, and in support of its motion for
summary judgment defendants make that assertion here. More troubling is the role of
ReconTrust. It was ReconTrust which issued the notice of default to the borrower. ReconTrust
was not the trustee when that notice was issued. It’s undisputed that ReconTrust was, at all
times, a wholly owned subsidiary of BANA. There’s no reason, or at least none that I could see,
that would preclude ReconTrust from issuing a notice of default as an agent of BANA. But
thereafter MERS named ReconTrust as the trustee. Or perhaps ReconTrust named itself as the
trustee, since the signatory “G. Hernandez” was not an employee of MERS but rather was
employed by ReconTrust. While the DTA appears to have been amended and arguably might
permit a subsidiary to act as a trustee, the statutory requirement remains that the trustee be
independent and not beholden to the lender or borrower. Acting as an agent of BANA and being
a wholly owned subsidiary of BANA, it seems specious to attempt to argue that ReconTrust was
an independent trustee
Here is an interview with a woman who is intimately familiar with the case and what the implications are.
If you are in Foreclosure or at risk for a Foreclosure - PLEASE contact an attorney, your town/city legal aid and get this information to them!
DO NOT GET FORECLOSED ON! STAND UP AND STAND FOR YOUR RIGHTS! STAND FOR LEGAL JUSTICE! STAND UP AGAINST THE ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES THAT ARE HAPPENING!
IF YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN FORECLOSED ON - GET AN ATTORNEY AND FILE SUIT AGAINST THE BANK THAT FORECLOSED ON YOU!
START A MOVEMENT OF ALL PAST ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES HAVING TO GO TO COURT AND THE PEOPLE WINNING FOR LEGAL JUSTICE!
Big Bank FAIL: Judge Rules Foreclosure Unconstitutional Non-Judicial Foreclosure –
ReplyDelete(comment) The Judge was correct, the “procedure is lawful, it just doesn’t apply to a residential home owner.
Nat’l Bank v. Commonwealth, 76 U.S. at 362 (national banks ‘‘are subject to the laws of the State, and are governed in their daily course of business far more by the laws of the State than of the nation. All their contracts are governed and construed by State laws. Their acquisition and transfer of property, their right to collect their debts, and their liability to be sued for debts, are all based on State law.’
The state of Washington only allows a Judicial Foreclosure of “Residential Real property” however the bank stated it was proceeding under Chapter 61.24 RCW of the state of Washington, they were ‘foreclosing on the Deed of Trust”. This has nothing to do with “Residential Real Property”.
Chapter 61.24 RCW (Revised Code Washington)
DEEDS OF TRUST *CHATTEL MORTGAGES
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=61.24
61.24.040
61.24.040 Foreclosure and sale—Notice of sale.
61.24.040 Foreclosure and sale—Notice of sale. A
deed of trust foreclosed under this chapter shall be foreclosed
as follows:…..
(comment), The above mentioned is “procedure” or how the actual law or Statute of the Legislature will be enforced. The actual law is listed at the end of Chapter 61.24 RCW section 61.24.040, the earliest being the 1965 statute, the small c (means Chapter) 74, §, means section 4 (see below)
[2012 c 185 § 10; 2009 c 292 § 9; 2008 c 153 § 3; 1998 c 295 § 5; 1989 c 361 § 1; 1987 c 352 § 3; 1985 c 193 § 4; 1981 c 161 § 3; 1975
1st ex.s. c 129 § 4; 1967 c 30 § 1; 1965 c 74 § 4.]
Non-Judicial Foreclosure of Deeds of Trusts
for General Obligation Bonds-Political Subdivisions-Municipal Corporations.
1965
SESSION LAWS
OF THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON
EXTRAORDINARY SESSION, THIRTY-NINTH LEGISLATURE
Convened March 15, 1965. Adjourned May 7, 1965.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1965pam2.pdf
Chapter 74 General Obligation Bonds-Political Subdivisions-Municipal Corporations. Page 1892
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS-POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS-MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
AN ACT relating to general obligation bonds of political subdivisions
and municipal and quasi municipal corporations
of the state of Washington; amending sections 1 and 3,
chapter 151, Laws of 1923, as last amended by sections
1 and 2, chapter 141, Laws of 1961, and RCW 39.44.010
and 39.44.030; amending section 2, chapter 151, Laws of
1923, and RCW 39.44.020; adding a new section to chapter
39.44 RCW; and declaring an emergency.
SEC. 4. There is added to chapter 39.44 RCW a New section.
new section to read as follows: Hereafter all bonds issued by an issuer may be
such denominations as the governing body of the issuer may in its discretion determine, except that bonds other than bond number one of any issue shall be in a denomination that is a multiple of one hundred dollars.
SEC. 5. This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, the support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately.
Summary, All non-judicial foreclosures in Washington State are void concerning Residential Real Property, the banks have no venue, no subject matter jurisdiction, and are guilty of Fraud, Fraud on the Courts and R.I.C.O.