You are on page 1of 3

WHAT WILL A TRUSTEES DEED TELL?

Most public records keep the chain of index in order of Grantor to Grantee as to the property affected. When the tangible obligation and the intangible obligation are mixed, confusion is imminent. In fact, there are mixed tangibles and intangibles, where the words sound and are spelt the same, but require a different application as to law. Most individuals see the financial crisis as being an issue between homeowners and banks. This is far from the truth. Even individuals that rent with investments placed in intangible trust pools stand to lose a mediocre amount or all of their retirement investment. Such loss is not limited to just renters, but also any person, place, or thing that involves investing in the intangible market. Yes, this includes lawmakers, public officials, police and firemen retirement funds, etc. Back to Grantor Grantee Indexing In this writing the tangible obligor, maker of the promissory note, issuer of the promissory note, and Grantor of an interest in real property identified in a security instrument, Deed of Trust, Mortgage, etc will be a homeowner for lay person comprehension. The homeowner issues a promissory note as being the maker to an identified payee, the mortgage brokers lender. For the lender to be better protected that funds will be repaid, the mortgage broker lender required the homeowner to sign a security instrument as an alternate means to collect a debt, by granting the mortgage broker lender an interest in real property. To comply with most states laws regarding contracts involving interest in land the security instrument was recorded in local county records. Similarly, any assignment of an interest in land made by the mortgage brokers lender would also need to be in writing and filed of record in the county where the property resides. So far we have the homeowner signing a promissory note, but for this promissory note to be a Negotiable Instrument the promissory note has to be in compliance with Uniform Commercial Code Article 3 or each states adopted equivalence. The homeowner has also sign as Grantor a security interest in the real property to mortgage brokers lender being the Grantee. In the old days where the promissory note and the security instrument were written within one document, the required filing of the security instrument resulted in the promissory note also being file. This writer is unaware of any legal requirement that a promissory note needs to be filed record. However, any conveyance or assignment of an interest in real property is to be filed in the county where the real property resides. Additionally, any conveyance or assignment of an interest in personal property that requires a UCC filing statement to perfect interests is to be filed with the appropriate state agency. Filing for perfection and the filing for perfection position are not one in the same and there are consequences for not filing. To explain part of the deception, we will use filings from Williamson County in Texas, although there are likely to be similar instances in each county in the country. We will start by looking at the Williamson County instrument #200000775, Substitute Trustees Deed. The face of this instrument reveals a claim that Atlantic Mortgage & Investment Corporation purchased the real property. The instrument also notes that Atlantic Mortgage &

Investment Corporation was the beneficiary by assignment of the Deed of Trust that began with Charter Mortgage Company. In this Deed of Trust identified as instrument #9548934 we find written in Covenant #20 that the Note or a partial interest in the Note (together with this Security Instrument) maybe sold one or more times. Where a case law as far back as in the United States Supreme Courts opinion of Carpenter versus Longam, Charter Mortgage Company could sell the Note and the Security Instrument would have traveled with the Note instilling that the Note was a secured instrument. However, where state laws do not apply to the Note there is application to the Security Instrument as to require recordation in regards for the Security Instrument to remain perfected to the Note, unlike the Note the Security Instrument in non-compliance with law would become a nullity. Upon such nullity, in the case of Vacek, the subsequent beneficiary of the Note would have been limited to actions dependent upon the Note being unsecured by a Security Instrument. Wherein if an interest in the Note was sold, value would exist in the intangible world and intangible laws would apply. Here enters a point of serious word crafting confusion. Not only are the county land records being deprived of fees required, the states offices for filing of UCC financing statements are being deprived of fees due if an intangible instrument is to be perfected. Uniform Commercial Code prescribes the method and means for assigning perfected rights to a subsequent purchaser of an intangible obligation but such rights first must be perfected which all states require a fee for filing. Not only will the banks bleed all the tangible value from a homeowner, the banks will bleed all tangible value from each and every state, county investor, or retiree and the United States government appears to be aiding and abetting this theft process by funneling tangible taxpayer funds to the banks for protecting intangible wealth which is 100 fold in value greater than tangible value. Addressing Atlantic Mortgage & Investment Company we find a New York Times article, noting that Atlantic Mortgage & Investment Corporation was a servicing company purchased by ABN AMRO. Now, back to the Williamson County documents filed of record. Here we must caution the use of an abstract offered up with an attempt to introduce as evidence should be deemed inadmissible as being hearsay under Federal Rules of Evidence 802/803. However, there is nothing wrong with obtaining an abstract to guide for the purchase of Certified Copies from public records, which is admissible as evidence. What appears to be missing in the Vacek case is there was a negotiation of the tangible obligation is a chain of assignments assigning the Security Instrument to each subsequent purchaser of the tangible Note. When we look at the filings for Vacek in Williamson County public land records, we notice that the intangible obligation was negotiated and thus filing in Williamson County of these instruments was not required. Could this be the banks mentality for stating that tangible assignments may be filed? In accordance to law, the filing of notice in the wrong record office is equal to that of no notice being recorded. Back to Grantor, in the tangible world there is only one Grantor to a Security Instrument, in the intangible world there is also only one Grantor of the intangible security (the payment stream). As the law is written, to best serve the lack of proper indexing, the Assignors of an intangible obligation routinely file of county land records they are the Grantor of an interest in real property. As partially noted above, filing by an intangible assignor in public land records is not the proper

place for filing a UCC financing statement, therefore such filing in accordance to law should be that of a nullity. Lets look back to instrument #2000004103, appointment of Substitute Trustee in Williamson County public land records. The signatory, Jim M. Satterwhite Assistant Vice President, would come into question as to what the Substitute Trustee was to sell. The Substitute Trustee could not sell the real property of Vaceks, for there is a lack of continuous granting of real property rights filed with Williamson County public land records for this property. By elimination, the only thing that the signatory could proffer up is an assignment of intangible rights to sell the security, securing the intangible obligation, but this cannot be done because there was a failure to perfect the state record. However, a tangible security instrument is entirely different breed from that of an intangible security interest. As public records reveal, this financial fiasco is not a recent event of haphazard movements but of a very well-planned strategy. 2013 Mortgage Compliance Investigators Authored by Joseph Esquivel and Damion Emholtz