A Trustee is widely known to be bogus

A response from one of my subscribing readers:  My comments are in italics

A trustee for a deed of trust is widely known to be bo gus. Courts have commented that a “trustee’ of a deed of trust is not a trustee at all, in a technical or strict sense”.

Also, there are some who state that a substitution of trustee is not a contract per se and not subject to the statute of frauds.  I hold a different opinion on this issue, as a trustee in a deed of trust contract is an integral part of the contract.  Therefore, a substitution of the integral part of the deed of trust contract makes it part of the overall contract itself.  It would be as if it were an addendum to the original contract.

A deed of trust, or an assignment is a contract subject to the Statute of Frauds and in some cases this has been useful in foreclosure defense. With an assignment it may be helpful to see if the document makes reference to the principal, that is the entity making the assignment also called the assignor. Under California law an agent may execute an assignment but it is not enforceable unless the document names the assignor. Oftentimes in MERS assignments they don’t bother.  In basic contract law, it is quite clear that any and all changes to any part or parcel of the contract must be fully understood, approved and signed off by all parties that are part and parcel to the contract throughout the duration of the contract.  Despite this discrepancy to basic contract law and the statute of frauds (1677). this challenge was effective in Suarez v. Bank of New York Mellon, Cal. Sup. 12-560082 (2013).

Corbin and Williston, the dead rock stars of contract law state, “Noncompliance with Statutory requirements results in the unenforceability of the contract due to Statute of Frauds”.

Even so challenging an assignment is an uphill battle in California thanks to the precedent set in Saterbak v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, 245 Cal. App. 4th 808, 199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 790 (Ct. App. 2016), an awful ruling that directly contradicted the Supreme Court decision in Yvanova.

 
 

* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.

SiteLock

©2014-2018 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.