The Players: popular favorites, Aurora Loan Services and parent Lehman, Quality Loan Service Corp (sale trustee firm, also known as “mill” by the disparaging types),
After the closing, on May 31, 2007, the Deed of Trust was recorded in the Maricopa County Court Recorder’s Office, naming the lender as “Shelter Mortgage, LLC, an Illinois corporation” (the originator who immediately transferred the loan into the pre-planned securitization) and the beneficiary as Defendant MERS. The Trustee is listed as 6700 Corporation, a California Corporation. Upon investigation, 6700 Corporation is not licensed to do business in Arizona. On the same day, a Deed of Trust is recorded for the second loan, again listing the lender as Shelter, the beneficiary as MERS, and the Trustee as 6700 Corporation.
There is a year and a half gap in the recordings. Next appears a Substitution of Trustee, recorded January 27, 2009, purporting to change the trustee from 6700 Corporation to Quality Loan Service Corporation. The Substitution is signed by “Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.” by “Jim Montes, Vice President” and is notarized in California, San Diego County by Sharina L. Guzman.
Also on January 27, 2009, a Notice of Trustee’s Sale on the subject property was recorded. The Notice of Trustee’s Sale[ lists MERS c/o Aurora Loan Services as the Beneficiary and Quality Loan Service Corporation as the Trustee Agent. Interestingly, here the same person who purported to sign for Defendant MERS on the recorded Substitution of Trustee, “Jim Montes, Vice President” now signs under the title for Quality Loan Service Corporation. This document is also witnessed by Sharina L. Guzman in California. Apparently, Jim Montes is a Vice President for both MERS and QLS and considers himself a proper party to transfer interests in Plaintiff’s property for sale, without disclosing the true owner or holder of the Note. Jim Montes has signed numerous public documents as a supposed executive of both “MERS” and “QLS.” At no time has he proved his competency to sign for either entity.
There is no explanation forthcoming from Defendants as to how and when the loan was sold to the current holder. The note was securitized from the beginning, and this material information was withheld from Plaintiff. In addition, the note is now governed by contracts and terms between “the investors” and Aurora (and the “true lender,” an indispensable party who is unnamed and should be discoverable from the Defendants but whose identity has been hidden from Plaintiff, despite Plaintiff’s repeated requests for this material information regarding the security instrument on his subject property) that were undisclosed to Plaintiff, that materially affect the security instrument, and that were not agreed to by Plaintiff. Aurora consistently obfuscated REDACT’s numerous requests (via letters, phone calls, and a QWR sent certified mail on February 2, 2009. In response, on May 25, 2009, more than 60 days after the inquiry was made, he received a voluminous letter from a Chicago law firm, objecting to each and every inquiry as though it were a discovery request, and providing paltry or no information regarding the legitimate questions about who owned his note, and who was being paid for it, and in what amounts.
Plaintiff blueprinted the facts that support his claim for wrongful foreclosure:
MERS is the claimed “beneficiary” and it cannot declare a default of the Note because as it has testified, it does not accept payments on Notes or account for Notes at all (Complaint ¶75).
The Note is not in default to these Defendants and they have failed identify the true party, and that the payments are going to the true party. The Defendants must identify a valid agency relationship to a valid principal and demonstrate a default through competent evidence.
The sale violated ARS §33-807 because there is no competent valid proof that there was a “breach or default in performance of the contract or contracts, for which the trust property is conveyed as security, or a breach or default of the trust deed.”
The Notice of Trustee’s Sale wrongly represented that MERS was the proper beneficiary under the Deed of Trust.
The Substitution of Trustee was invalidly executed by an invalid beneficiary.
The Deed of Trust and Note show the Lender as Shelter but the securitization documents filed with the SEC show numerous transfers of the Note, evidencing bifurcation of the Note and Deed of Trust and unrecordedclaimed “true sales” of the Note from Shelter to Sponsor/Seller (Aurora) to Depositor (Lehman) to the SPV (but whole loans not placed there, only interests in revenue as consideration for the investors’ purchase of the certificates that actually funded the loans in the pool).
Prior to the purported Trustee’s Sale, Aurora and MERS had full notice of Plaintiff’s dispute of their authority to enforce the Deed of Trust through the prior action in which the court declined jurisdiction over these supplemental state law claims and foreclosed anyway, despite an active lis pendens and a commensurate suit being filed in state court.
Aurora and MERS ordered the Trustee to foreclose with no notice to REDACT or his attorney.
In doing so, the defendants effected a series of false recordings, fraudulent transfers, and improper notarizations.