From a recent blog post by scammer Garfield: “In virtually all cases where a loan is subject to any claim of securitization, the scheme employed by the investment banks is not recognized by law or nor should it be.”
As usual, he makes another moronic statement the courts have found, factually and legally incorrect. Why anyone listens to this fraudster is beyond comprehension.
RODENHURST V. BANK OF AM., 773 F. Supp. 2d 886, 899 (D. Haw. 2011) (“The overwhelming authority does not support a [claim] based upon improper securitization.”) “[S]ince the securitization merely creates a separate contract, distinct from plaintiffs’ debt obligations under the Note and does not change the relationship of the parties in any way, plaintiffs’ claims arising out of securitization fail.” LAMB V. MERS, INC., 2011 WL 5827813, *6 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (citing cases); BHATTI, 2011 WL 6300229, *5 (citing cases); IN RE VEAL, 450 B.R. at 912 (“[Plaintiffs] should not care who actually owns the Note-and it is thus irrelevant whether the Note has been fractionalized or securitized-so long as they do know who they should pay.”); HORVATH V. BANK OF NY, N.A., 641 F.3d 617, 626 n.4 (4th Cir. 2011) (securitization irrelevant to debt); COMMONWEALTH PROP. ADVOCATES, LLC V. MERS, 263 P.3d 397, 401-02 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (securitization has no effect on debt); HENKELS V. J.P. MORGAN CHASE, 2011 WL 2357874, at *7 (D.Ariz. June 14, 2011) (denying the plaintiff’s claim for unauthorized securitization of his loan because he “cited no authority for the assertion that securitization has had any impact on [his] obligations under the loan, and district courts in Arizona have rejected similar arguments”); JOHNSON V. HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, 2011 WL 4373975, at *7 (S.D.Cal. Sep.20, 2011) (refusing to recognize the “discredited theory” that a deed of trust ” ‘split’ from the note through securitization, render[s] the note unenforceable”); FRAME V. CAL-W. RECONVEYANCE CORP., 2011 WL 3876012, *10 (D. Ariz. 2011) (granting motion to dismiss: “Plaintiff’s allegations of promissory note destruction and securitization are speculative and unsupported. Plaintiff has cited no authority for his assertions that securitization has any impact on his obligations under the loan”).”The Court also rejects Plaintiffs’ contention that securitization in general somehow gives rise to a cause of action – Plaintiffs point to no law or provision in the mortgage preventing this practice, and cite to no law indicating that securitization can be the basis of a cause of action. Indeed, courts have uniformly rejected the argument that securitization of a mortgage loan provides the mortgagor a cause of action.” See JOYNER V. BANK OF AM. HOME LOANS, No. 2:09-CV-2406-RCJ-RJJ, 2010 WL 2953969, at *2 (D. Nev. July 26, 2010) (rejecting breach of contract claim based on securitization of loan); HASKINS V. MOYNIHAN, No. CV-10-1000-PHX-GMS, 2010 WL 2691562, at *2 (D. Ariz. July 6, 2010) (rejecting claims based on securitization because plaintiffs could point to no law indicating that securitization of a mortgage is unlawful, and “[p]laintiffs fail to set forth facts suggesting that Defendants ever indicated that they would not bundle or sell the note in conjunction with the sale of mortgage-backed securities”); LARIVIERE V. BANK OF N.Y. AS TR., Civ. No. 9-515-P-S,
2010 WL 2399583, at *4 (D. Me. May 7, 2010) (“Many people in this country are dissatisfied and upset by [the securitization] process, but it does not mean that the [plaintiffs] have stated legally cognizable claims against these defendants in their amended complaint.”); UPPERMAN V. DEUTSCHE BANK NAT’L TRUST CO., No. 01:10-cv-149, 2010 WL 1610414, at *3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 16, 2010) (rejecting claims because they are based on an “erroneous legal theory that the securitization of a mortgage loan renders a note and corresponding security interest unenforceable and unsecured”) POWELL V. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTG., No. 14- CV-04248-MEJ, 2017 WL 840346, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2017) (contention that defendant lacked authority to make assignments because the note and deed of trust were split during the securitization process is not a viable theory of recovery under California law); SILVAS V. GMAC MORTG., LLC, No. CV-09-265-PHX-GMS, 2009 WL 4573234, at *5 (D.Ariz. Dec. 1, 2009) (rejecting a claim that a lending institution breached a loan agreement by securitizing and cross-collateralizing a borrower’s loan).The overwhelming authority does not support a cause of action based upon
improper securitization. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs cannot maintain a claim that “improper restrictions resulting from securitization leaves the note and mortgage unenforceable); SUMMERS V. PENNYMAC CORP. (N.D.Tex. 11-28-2012) (any securitization of Plaintiffs’ Note did not affect their obligations under the Note or PennyMac’s authority as mortgagee to enforce the Note and foreclose on the property if Plaintiffs defaulted).; NGUYEN V. JP MORGAN CHASE BANk (N.D.Cal. 10-17-2012) (“Numerous courts have recognized that a defendant bank does not lose its ability to enforce the terms of its deed of trust simply because the loan is assigned to a trust pool. In fact, ‘securitization merely creates a separate contract, distinct from [p]laintiffs[‘] debt obligations under the note, and does not change the relationship of the parties in any way. Therefore, such an argument would fail as a matter of law”);