We are fighting an obvious fraudulent foreclosure by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. First of all, Wells listed the non-existent entity that the TD was transferred to in 1993 which clearly called the entity “beneficiary” and the original Trustee of 1993 and forward as the current Trustee when they filed a NOD. Interestingly, MBAC, the beneficiary who transferred the TD to the new Non-Existent entity as the new beneficiary and the company, “Saxon Mortgage Funding” who requested the recorded TD be mailed after it was recorded had a business relationship. They were involved in securitization of “mortgages”. The original trustee remained the trustee of record to date. When Wells Fargo attempted to cover-up the bogus beneficiary and to gain control of the so-called note for themselves and then change the Trustee to First Am, they back-dated a Transfer of Trust Deed from themselves as attorney in fact for JPMorgan Chase Bank, fka, fka, fka, fka all the way down to the non-existent entity that was placed on record in 1993, which name has a partial resemblance in name to a legitimate bank that did ultimately end up as a part of JP Morgan Chase Bank, to themselves, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. That Transfer was executed and recorded in June 2010. But, right in the middle of it someone placed a stamp saying, “effective date” with a hand written date of April 9, 2011. A week later, Wells Fargo illegally substitutes a new Trustee who they always work with, Trans American Trustee Servicing. The NOD was served by Trans Am at the instruction of Wells Fargo in May 2010.

An interesting point of interest came to light. Back in 1992/93 MBAC (Mortgage Bankers Acceptance Corporation) and Saxon Mortgage Funding were involved with each other in the securitization of “Mortgages”. Digging around, I discovered that Saxon Mortgage Funding was involved in much litigation. I’m continuing my investigation. On the top left corner of the 1993 Transfer of TD read, “When recorded mail to Saxon Mortgage”. So far I have found a small connection between Saxon Mortgage and
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. That digging continues as well.

NOW TO THE ISSUE OF “TENDER”; in 1996, we were forced into Chapter 7. Exiting the bankruptcy, we never reaffirmed the note. That means we have no personal liability relating to the note. However, we are still the owners of the home as evidenced by a Grant Deed. And, we are still the Trustors on the Deed of Trust that secures the beneficiary’s interest. Obviously, it is to our benefit to see that the legitimate Trustee does not forclose our home of 37 years. Since we have not located another person to make the payment we have been doing that until recently. We lost all our retirement money and a large income during the “financial meltdown” that in my opinion is far from finished. Back to the personal liability issue. . . .

Since we have no personal liability toward satisfying the monetary terms of the note, HOW CAN WE BE REQUIRED TO TENDER EITHER PARTIAL OR FULL PAYMENT ON THE NOTE. I think the question here is; to whom or to what does the Tender Rule bestow its obligation to pay. Is the Tender Rule directed at us who have no legal obligation to pay any part of it? If so, then why not apply the Tender Rule in our case to you. After all, you have no legal obligation to pay it either. It could be that I am wrong. But, if I am, someone needs to show me the legal authority that obligates us to its payment.

Even if the Tender Rule said that the Trustor on the Deed of Trust must Tender, that would be in violation the ruling of the bankruptcy court in our case. If the Tender Rule were to be generically directed, I suppose it would have standing as a Rule. But, it still couldn’t create our liability to Tender. For instance, “Anyone must show their ability and willingness to Tender under the Tender Rule before we can continue”, that would make sense. But, is that what it says? I doubt it, but I don’t know at this point.

But, apart from our never reaffirming our personal liability to any payment on the so-called (remember, there is no beneficiary) note whether it be to keep it current or to pay a deficiency judgment or to Tender as per the Tender Rule, I believe we have enough very obvious proof of fraud as to get around the rule because if the foreclosure were to go through, the very instant the foreclosure was completed, it would immediately be void due to the fraud that allowed the actions necessary by the correct parties to affect the foreclosure.

I didn’t take time to re-read this. Hence, I’m certain my syntax and other things are off.

Wes Ives
Tarbell Realtors

Christina Worm
Processor
American Financial Network Inc.

Is this any different than the title policy the seller pays during escrow?