“People think it is holding on that makes you stronger, but sometimes it’s letting go.”
Los Angeles CA; August 9th 2012 / The plaintiff is the principal debtor to the mortgage obligation received on or about (date). Plaintiff received the proceeds from loan at time of settlement as indicated on the disbursement schedule (see attached exhibit HUD 1 Statement). The precedent for a loans settlement is the wire advance or Fed Funds “ABA wire” delivered to the subject loans closing agent.
A plaintiff makes certain promises to the lender called COVENANTS. There is a covenant to pay back the loan and a covenant to transfer legal title to a fiduciary or trustee incidental to a fiduciary is a executory agreement. This latter covenant is in the event of a default.
To create a bona-fide trust conveyance and grant a trustee dominion over trust assets, your home, would have to convey title and promise to allow such conveyances to occur not withstanding a future event. That future event is in fact abated as title is transferred in advance, at time of the settlement.
Such understanding would open the door to all kinds of possibilities to a grantee and subsequent “beneficiary” of trust assets. The grantor is one who forms a trust for investment purposes. Again, this would require the title holder to be lawfully held as conveying his estate to another and to have done so upon his acknowledgment.
Therefore, I affirm in affidavit that the Plaintiff has agreed to have granted the right to convey the Property. Under the accounting rules for Derecognition, the debt the Plaintiff is held are for proceeds he received in settlement. If the debt is later released “off balance sheet” as a Banks asset and de-recognized a FDIC banks affiliate “commercial obligation”, the liability and asset ceases to exist. This is the basis for a sale!
In this manner the subject mortgagor is transferring the estate and Property warranting the land and improvements to be unencumbered. This would assume lien free except for all lines or encumbrances of record.
Plaintiffs are alleged to have in fact been given a loan that was later recognized by the trust as contribution, for assets that transfer the mortgage into securities. The transferor Plaintiff is further hampered where he warrants he shall honor the transfer of title as a conveyance FBO the indentures trustee for dominion over the property, a trust asset. The conveyance is now held to a right of repurchase and technically does not allow the Plaintiff transferor to even remain in the property under what is known as a livery of seisin. Here the Plaintiff is a seller repurchasing back the property under an executory agreement under a more commonly knonw feature for these structured financing deals called a REPO.
Now you can understanding how the right of repurchase is to a contract of sale and purchase back at a later date that maintains the Plaintiff and will defend generally the title to the Property against all claims and demands, subject to any encumbrances of record. This is the material covenant that is breached in a foreclosure defense. Counter arguments are no breach took place under a false right to enforce a power of sale by a lender, done in abstention of fact, under a blank assignment five years after the fact.
The recording of the mortgage is the fatal move against the title that in other words is recorded as the principal amount due for the face value of a 40 year bond. The Bond issued is accreted (reverse of amortization) under a negative pledge to a foreign national bank. The bond will springboard a non interst bearing note as a synthetic yield borne from a discounted valuation of the sponsors obligation – not the plaintiffs debt.
The editor of other sites like Livinglies is of another opinion changing it from day-to-day. No less, I am not in competition with him as an expert who testifies in court. People and attorneys can pick their own horse to ride the race out. What I am saying is there is No quieting of title and No intraparty violation for fictitious endorsements to the same depositors account.
Finally, MersCorp may be the only thing the Plaintiff may have left to enforce the nominees protections afforded the beneficiary of a contract sale or land sale contract – which is your right to repurchase your home title.