Next player is famous: it’s the media darling, GMAC. And what a star it is:
The Players: GMAC
After the closing, the Deed of Trust was recorded in the Maricopa County Court Recorder’s Office on December 7, 2005, naming the lender as “Meritage Mortgage” and the beneficiary as Defendant MERS. The Trustee is designated as the title company, Transnation Title Insurance Co.
There is a year and a half gap in the recordings. Next appears a Substitution of Trustee, recorded April 6, 2009, purporting to change the trustee from Transnation Title Insurance Company to Executive Trustee Services, LLC. The Substitution is signed by “Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.” by “Cindy Sandoval, Assistant Secretary” and is notarized in California, Los Angeles County by Dee Ortega. Cindy Sandoval and Dee Ortega are employees of Executive, not MERS.
Also on April 6, 2009, a Notice of Trustee’s Sale on the subject property was recorded. The Notice of Trustee’s Sale and the simultaneously filed Substitution of Trustee have suspicious elements that smack of fraud.
The Notice of Trustee’s Sale lists MERS as the Beneficiary and Executive Trustee Services LLC as the Trustee. Interestingly, the claimed signatory “Marvell L. Carmouche, Limited Signing Officer” for Executive has very similar handwriting to “Cindy Sandoval, Assistant Secretary” who signed the simultaneously recorded Substitution of Trustee, purportedly for MERS. This document is also witnessed by Dee Ortega. in California. Neither Cindy Sandoval nor Marvell Carmouche display or prove their competency to sign and bind either company. Nor is there any explanation provided as to why the so-called MERS executive and the so-called Executive executive have identical handwriting..
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 Plaintiffs. Pursuant to the securitization, a series of transfers and “true sales” were contemplated. This chain of transfer contradicts the transfers and timing now disclosed on the public record by GMAC.
In addition, the note is now governed by contracts and terms between “the investors” (and the “true lender,” an indispensable party who is unnamed and should be discoverable from the Defendants but whose identity has been hidden from Plaintiffs, despite Plaintiffs’ repeated requests for this material information regarding the security instrument on their subject property) and GMAC and RFC, contracts that were undisclosed to Plaintiffs, that materially affect the security instrument, and that were not agreed to by Plaintiffs.
GMAC has consistently obfuscated Plaintiffs’ numerous requests (via letters, phone calls, and a QWR sent June 23, 2009 and received by GMAC on June 26, 2009. In response to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s second letter requesting information regarding the holder of the note, on July 10, 1009, GMAC sent a letter 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 their note, and who was being paid for it, and in what amounts.