SECTION A

FORECLOSURES BY TRUSTS
CASES DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
Cases
Bank of New York v. LaFalce,
Case No. 10 06966 (Hillsborough County, Florida 2012)
Trust: TBW Mortgage-Backed, PT Certs., Series 2006-2
On October 11, 2011, this Court directed Plaintiff
to provide some documentation or other evidence
showing the authority of the original mortgage holder,
Taylor Bean & Whitaker (TBW), to assign the subject
mortgage to it in light of a bankruptcy filed by TBW in
August, 2009. Even after being given additional time
to comply, and even after its then-counsel was
disqualified after failing to comply, Plaintiff willfully
failed to comply with this Courts Order. Tellingly,
even after the Defendant sought entry of Final
Judgment based on Plaintiffs failure to comply with
this Order, Plaintiff still failed to comply.
Citibank N.A. v. Murillo,
Index No. 16214/08, 2011 NY Slip Op 21004
(N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2011)
Trust: Bear Stearns AB Trust 2007-SD3
Today is sixty-four (64) days since I issued my
November 4, 2008 order and seventy-nine (79) days
since Chief Administrative Judge Pfau issued her
Administrative Order with respect to plaintiff's counsel
confirming, in foreclosure actions, the factual accuracy
of plaintiff's court filings and notarizations. I have not
received the twice ordered affirmation from plaintiff's
10

counsel. Therefore, for violation of these orders, the

instant foreclosure action is dismissed with prejudice
and the notice of pendency is cancelled and
discharged.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Bodzianowski,
Case No. 1:11-cv-01950 (N.D. ILL October 11, 2011)
Trust: NovaStar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2006-5
Defendants motion to dismiss for lack of standing
is granted. Case is dismissed with prejudice as to
Plaintiff Deutsche Bank and without prejudice as to
any other Plaintiff who may have proper standing.
Deutsche Bank v. Francis,
2011 NY Slip Op 50423(U), Index: 10441/09
Trust: GSAMP 2007-FM2
Mortgage Amount: $445,500
Plaintiff DEUTSCHE BANK lacked standing to foreclose
on the instant mortgage and note when this action
commenced on April 29, 2009, the day that
DEUTSCHE BANK filed the summons, verified
complaint and notice of pendency with the Kings
County Clerk, because it can not demonstrate that it
owned the mortgage and note that day. Plaintiff
alleges that the April 21, 2009 assignment from MERS,
as nominee for FREMONT, to plaintiff DEUTSCHE BANK
was to be recorded. As of today it has not been
recorded.
Deutsche Bank v. Lippi,
Case No. CA08-0127 (St. Johns County, Fla. 2010)
Trust: GSAMP 2006-FM1

11

Even though this Court repeatedly asked Plaintiff

to provide pleadings or documents that GSAMP 2006FM1 was an actual entity that was the real party in
interest, and despite numerous requests from
Defendant, no allegations were made. Furthermore,
the Mortgage at issue on its face showed that
Mortgage
Electronic
Registration
Systems,
Incorporated (MERS) was the nominee for Fremont
Investment and Loan. An Assignment of Mortgage,
dated after Plaintiff brought this action, showed that
MERS was the nominee for Americas Servicing
Company (ASC). Plaintiff never showed the GSAMP
2006-FM1 had standing to bring the action
THEREFORE, the court hereby ORDERS and
ADJUDGES as follows:
1. Defendants Motion to Dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint is GRANTED with prejudice
because over a two year period Plaintiff failed
to allege or provide documents demonstrating
its right to bring this action.
Reversed on appeal. 78 So.3d 81 Fla. 5th DCA 2012).
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Taher,
32 Misc. 3d. 1208(A), 932 N.Y.S. 2d 760
(N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2011)
Trust: Renaissance Home Equity Loan Trust 2007-2
Therefore, the continuation of this action by
plaintiff HSBC, with its false statements of fact, the
use of robosigners, and the disingenuous affirmation
of Mr. Cassara, appears to be frivolous
It is clear that the instant motion for an order of
reference is completely without merit in law and
asserts material factual statements that are false.
Further, Mr. Cassaras January 6, 2011 affirmation,
12

with its false and defective statements may be a cause

for sanctions.
HSBC Bank v. Yeasmin,
2010 NY Slip Op 50927
(N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2010)
Trust: Nomura AB Certs., Series 2006-AF1
Mortgage Amount: $624,800
The instant renewed motion is dismissed for
untimeliness. Plaintiff made its renewed motion for an
order of reference 204 days late, in violation of the
Court's May 2, 2008 decision and order. Moreover,
even if the instant motion was timely, the
explanations offered by plaintiff's counsel, in his
affirmation in support of the instant motion and
various documents attached to exhibit F of the instant
motion, attempting to cure the four defects explained
by the Court in the prior May 2, 2008 decision and
order, are so incredible, outrageous, ludicrous and
disingenuous that they should have been authored by
the late Rod Serling, creator of the famous sciencefiction television series, The Twilight Zone. Plaintiff's
counsel, Steven J. Baum, P.C., appears to be
operating in a parallel mortgage universe, unrelated to
the real universe
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Emmanuel,
27 Misc.3d 1220(A), Index No. 19272/09
(N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2009)
Trust: SG Mortgage Securities AB Certs., Series 2006FRE2
Mortgage Amount: $480,000
(This dismissal with prejudice was later reversed by 921
13

N.Y.S.2d 320 (App. Div. 2011).)

The instant foreclosure actionis denied with
prejudice. The instant action is dismissed and the
instant notice of pendency is cancelled. Plaintiff U.S.
BANK never had standing to prosecute this action
because of an ineffective assignment of the subject
mortgage and note to it. Plaintiffs U.S. BANKs
attempt to foreclose upon a mortgage in which it has
to legal or equitable interest is without foundation in
law or fact.
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Harpster,
Case No. S1-2007-CA-6684-ES (Pasco County, Fla.
2010)
Trust: Banc of America Funding 2007-6 Trust
Findings of Fact:
7) The Assignment, as an instrument of fraud in
this Court intentionally perpetrated upon this Court by
the Plaintiff, was made to appear as though it was
created and notorized (sic) on December 5, 2007.
However, that purported creation/notarization date
was facially impossible: the stamp on the notary was
dated May 19, 2012. Since Notary commissions only
last four years in Florida (see F.S. Section 117.01 (1)),
the notary stamp used on this instrument did not even
exist until approximately five months after the
purported date on the Assignment.
8) Confirming this, the Notary Bonding Companys
representative, Erika Espinoza, stated in a sworn
affidavit that the Notary Stamp used by Terry Rice,
the Notary, did not exist on the purported date it was
notarized. Specifically, Espinoza testified in her
affidavit that the notary stamp didnt come into
14

existence until sometime in April, 2008, five months

after the date on the Assignment
(Plaintiffs complaint dismissed with prejudice, based
on the fraud intentionally perpetrated upon the Court
by the Plaintiff.)
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Kimball,
27 A.3d 1087, 2011 VT 81
Trust: RASC 2005-AHL1
Mortgage Amount: $185,520
At this point, US Bank abandoned its claim of
assignment of the mortgage and instead asserted that
it held the original note. It submitted the note with an
allonge containing two undated specific endorsements,
one to US Bank. The supporting affidavit claimed that
the note had been endorsed to US Bank, but provided
no information about when and failed to explain why a
note with a blank endorsement was the basis for the
complaint
In fact, US Bank asserted that the note with the
blank endorsement was an earlier copy that was
mistakenly attached to the complaint. It also alleged
that the blank endorsement was stamped with RFCs
name in 2005. Therefore, it could not possibly have
held the original note with a blank endorsement when
the complaint was filed. Further, there is no evidence
to show that US Bank held the original note endorsed
to its name before the complaint was filed. While US
Bank eventually produced the original note with an
endorsement to it, none of the evidence submitted at
summary judgment by US Bank established the timing
of the endorsement.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Farmer,
19 Misc.3d 1141 (A), 2008 NY Slip Op 51133(U)
15

(N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2008)

Trust: Park Place Sec., Inc. ABPT Certs., Series 2005
WLL1
Mortgage Amount: $460,000

In my February 4, 2008 decision and order in the

instant matter I denied without prejudice the
application of plaintiff WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS
TRUSTEE
(WELLS
FARGO)
for
an
order
of
referencewith leave to renew upon providing the
Court with: a copy of a valid assignment of the instant
mortgage and note to plaintiff WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., AS TRUSTEE (WELLS FARGO); a satisfactory
explanation to questions with respect to the two
December 8, 2004 assignments of the instant
mortgage and note from ARGENT MORTGAGE
COMPANY, LLC (ARGENT) to AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE
COMPANY
(AMERIQUEST),
and
then
from
AMERIQUEST to plaintiff WELLS FARGO Plaintiff has
renewed its application for an order of reference for
the subject premises, but the papers submitted fail to
cure the defects enumerated in my prior decision and
order. The purported plaintiff, WELLS FARGO, does not
own the instant mortgage loan. Therefore, the instant
matter is dismissed with prejudice
Further, the second December 8, 2008 assignment,
from AMERIQUEST to "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as
Trustee," fails to name a beneficiary for the Trustee.
The failure to name a beneficiary for the Trustee
renders the assignment without merit. It is axiomatic
that "[t]here are four essential elements of a trust: (1)
a designated beneficiary; (2) a designated trustee; (3)
a fund or other property sufficiently designated or
identified to enable title thereto to pass to the trustee;
and (4) actual delivery or legal assignment of the
property to the trustee, with the intention of passing

16

legal title to such property to the trustee (cites

mitted)
Both December 8, 2004 defective assignments ARGENT to AMERIQUEST and AMERIQUEST to WELLS
FARGO - are voided and cancelled. ARGENT is the
owner of the FARMER mortgage loan.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Reyes,
867 N.Y.S.2d 21(N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2008)
Trust: Morgan Stanley ABS Capital 1, Inc., MSAC 2007HE4
Mortgage Amount: $617,500
The Court is gravely concerned that it expended
scarce resources on a motion by WELLS FARGO, which
is not the owner and has never been the owner of the
REYES' mortgage. WELLS FARGO has no standing in
the instant action
It is clear that plaintiff WELLS FARGO lacks
standing to foreclose on the instant REYES' mortgage.
WELLS FARGO has failed to establish ownership of the
mortgage. Therefore, WELLS FARGO may not seek
judicial redress. There are no recorded assignments of
the note from MERS as nominee of WMC to any other
party, despite WELLS FARGO's allegation, in 4 of the
February 21, 2008 verified complaint, that the MERS
as nominee for WMC mortgage was assigned to
Plaintiff [WELLS FARGO] by assignment(s). Plaintiff is
still the owner and holder of the aforementioned
instrument(s) [the WMC mortgage].
ORDERED, that as plaintiff, WELLS FARGO BANK,
NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION
AS
TRUSTEE
AND
CUSTODIAN FOR MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL 1
INC., MSAC 2007-HE4, lacks standing and has never
been the mortgagee in this foreclosure action, the
17

instant complaint, Index No. 5516/08, is dismissed

with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that the
Notice of Pendency filed with the Kings County Clerk
on February 21, 2008, by purported plaintiff, WELLS
FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE
AND CUSTODIAN FOR MORGAN STANLEY ABS
CAPITAL1 INC., MSAC 2007-HE4, in an action to
foreclose a mortgage for real property is cancelled
Dismissal with Prejudice Reversed on Appeal and
Remanded (with significant increased attorneys fees to
the trust).

18