Note where the substitution of trustee in Washington gives clues as it describes how it is the successor beneficiary. Herein, One West Bank claims itself as the successor by assignment to IndyMac Bank assets.
One West discloses that it warrants and represents, as of the date the assignment was executed and acknowledged, whereby it is the party named by the Obligee “FDIC” for debt secured originally by the subject deed of trust.
The disclosure is logical as a participant in or under the Loss Risk Share Program offered to One West Bank by the Government in 2008.
One West adds in disclaimer that is not holding the same security for the bond (i.e. DB obligation outstanding) presumed from IMB FSB prior issuance and pledged deposits used to create 40 year “term” bonds.
The bond was used for structuring assets backed securities from a warehouse line.
The bond converted from the original obligation of Indy Mac Bank owed to the Federal Reserve.
In its disclosure, One West alert’s the parties of interest that the original deed of trust was derecognized and is lost to charges and write downs by the Fed. These charges under the TARP provisions, bought back to at time of sale under the Debt Collections Practices Act, under short title sale and material misrepresentations made by the foreclosing parties
In this argument is the need to decipher the right of foreclosing parties absent a deed of trust, having forfeited title, alleged unlawfully seized at settlement?
The title to the property was derecognized under accounting rules [See GAAP FAS 140-3] causing the property to be unencumbered for the purpose of underwriting the bonds.
Now, foreclosing parties have proposed by short title devises the demand for recognition purposes while it avoids the controversy of dual consideration, bifurcation, having negotiated to roll bond investors into a new five bond presumed guaranteed by the government …
All for the same deed of trust.
For free analysis contact the editor