NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE

As reported by Foreclosure Defense Nationwide, the fight against the banks is slowly moving on the HOMEOWNERS' side.
Here is why:

NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE FILED BY DEUTSCHE BANK FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE DISCOVERY AS TO OWNER AND HOLDER OF NOTE, SECURUTIZED TRUST DOCUMENTS, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS DEMANDED BY BORROWERS

July 14, 2009
In a stunning victory for borrowers, a New Jersey court has dismissed a foreclosure action filed against the borrowers by Deutsche Bank Trust Company America as alleged trustee for a securitized mortgage loan trust after Deutsche Bank willfully, and despite the entry of three (3) separate court orders, refused to produce documents demanded by the borrowers which included documents setting forth the identity of the true owner and holder of the Note and mortgage, the complete chain of title to ownership of the note and mortgage, payment application histories, and documents as to the securitized mortgage loan trust. The Court had given Deutsche Bank multiple opportunities and extensions of time to produce the documents, but Deutsche Bank continually refused to produce any of the documents requested, resulting in the dismissal of Deutsche Bank’s foreclosure action. The Court also ruled that Deutsche Bank is not permitted to re-file any foreclosure action until it is prepared to produce ALL of the subject discovery.
FDN attorney Jeff Barnes, Esq. represented the borrowers, assisted by local New Jersey counsel.
W. J. Barnes, P.A. has numerous other cases pending where similar discovery requests have been sent to Deutsche Bank, none of which have been complied with to date. As such, additional requests for sanctions, including dismissal, are expected to be filed in these cases.
Deutsche Bank was also the subject of a recent ruling in a case in New York where the Court denied Deutsche Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that a purported assignment from MERS to Deutsche Bank was defective and that Deutsche Bank, with an invalid assignment of the mortgage and note from MERS, lacked standing to foreclose. Significant in the ruling was the court’s observation and question as to why, 142 days after the borrower was claimed to be in default, that MERS would assign a “toxic” loan to Deutsche Bank. The court also required a satisfactory explanation, by sworn Affidavit, from an officer of the securitized trust as to why, in the middle of “our national subprime mortgage financial crisis”, Deutsche Bank would purchase from MERS, as alleged “nominee”, a nonperforming loan. The court further inquired as to whether Deutsche Bank violated a corporate fiduciary duty to the note holders of the securitized mortgage loan trust with the purchase of a loan that had defaulted 142 days prior to its assignment from MERS to the trust.
It appears that Deutsche Bank may have done so to take advantage of one or more “credit enhancements” inside of the securitized mortgage loan trust which pay benefits upon declaration of default. These credit enhancements are extremely complicated and multi-layered, and are required by law in connection with the issuance and sale of the mortgage-backed securities “backed” by the trust.
The assignment of the mortgage and note to the securitized trust, which were already in default well in advance of the assignment, would permit Deutsche Bank to both realize a profit through payment of credit enhancement benefits (which effect a pay down of the claimed “default”) while simultaneously permitting Deutsche Bank to institute a foreclosure, resulting in a “double dip” for Deutsche Bank. This is, of course, illegal, but unless competent counsel raises the issue, it goes unnoticed and Deutsche Bank, like so many other foreclosing parties, winds up stealing the borrowers’ property and getting paid for doing it.
Jeff Barnes, Esq.
www.ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com