BANC OF AMERICA FUNDING CORPORATION,
as Depositor,
as Master Servicer and Securities Administrator,
and
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
as Trustee
POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT
Dated August 30, 2007
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 2007-7
Number on Mtge Deed: 668409245
Name of trust: Banc of America Funding 2007-7 Trust
Name of purported Original Lender; Bank of America NA.
Closing Date: On or about August 30, 2007 Cut-off Date: August 1, 2007
The report starts with an
Excerpt of Article II of the pooling and servicing Agreement of the subject loan. The link is also provided for reference. The party in interest is in fact “Pay to the order of U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” and the note and the mortgage must be in that name with that endorsement to be proper. In this case the note is in Blank and in the name of Bank of America N. A.
Is the note a negotiable instrument or not a negotiable instrument?
ARTICLE II
CONVEYANCE OF MORTGAGE LOANS;
ORIGINAL ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/934377/000137940207000043/ex4_1.txt
Section 2.01 Conveyance of Mortgage Loans.
(a) The Depositor, concurrently with the execution and delivery hereof, hereby sells, transfers, assigns, sets over and otherwise conveys to the Trustee on behalf of the Trust for the benefit of the Certificateholders, without recourse, all the right, title and interest of the Depositor in and to the -49-
<PAGE>
Mortgage Loans and the related Mortgage Files, including all interest and principal received on or with respect to the Mortgage Loans (other than payments of principal and interest due and payable on the Mortgage Loans on or before the Cut-off Date) and the Depositor’s rights under the BANA Servicing Agreement and under the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, including the rights of the Depositor as assignee of the Sponsor with respect to the Sponsor’s rights underthe Servicing Agreements (other than the BANA Servicing Agreement) and the underlying sale agreements.
(b) In connection with such transfer and assignment, the Depositor has delivered or caused to be delivered to the Trustee, or a Custodian on behalf of the Trustee, for the benefit of the Certificateholders, the following documents or instruments with respect to each Mortgage Loan so assigned:
(i) the original Mortgage Note, endorsed by manual or facsimile signature in the following form: “Pay to the order of U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” with all necessary intervening endorsements showing a complete chain of endorsement from the originator to the Trustee (each such endorsement being sufficient to transfer all right, title and interest of the party so endorsing, as noteholder or assignee thereof, in and to that Mortgage Note)and, in the case of any Mortgage Loan originated in the State of New York documented by a NYCEMA, the NYCEMA, the new Mortgage Note, if applicable, the consolidated Mortgage Note and the consolidated Mortgage;
The Securitized Trust
The Notice of Default indicates that the original creditor is Bank of America, N.A yet the name of the Movant is in the name of a Common Law Trust. The Trust is a New York common law trust created through a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “PSA”). Under the PSA, loans were purportedly pooled into a trust and converted into mortgage-backed securities. The PSA provides a closing date for the Trust of August 30, 2007. As set forth below, this was the date on which all assets were required to be deposited into the Trust. The PSA provides that New York law governs the acquisition of mortgage assets for the Trust.
The Trust was formed as a REMIC trust. Under the REMIC provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) the closing date of the Trust is also the startup day for the Trust. The closing date/startup day is significant because all assets of the Trust were to be transferred to the Trust on or before the closing date to ensure that the Trust received its REMIC status.
The IRC provides in pertinent part that: “Except as provided in section 860G(d)(2), ‘if any amount is contributed to a REMIC after the startup day, there is hereby imposed a tax for the taxable year of the REMIC in which the contribution is received equal to 100 percent of the amount of such contribution.” 26 U.S.C. § 860G(d)(1).
A trust’s ability to transact is restricted to the actions authorized by its trust documents.
The homeowner alleges that here, the Trust documents permit only one specific method of transfer to the Trust, set forth in § 2.01 of the PSA. 6. Section 2.01 requires the Depositor to provide the Trustee with the original Mortgage Note, endorsed in blank or endorsed with the following: U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” under the applicable agreement, without recourse.”All prior and intervening endorsements must show a complete chain of endorsement from the originator to the Trustee.
Under New York Estates Powers and Trusts Law § 7-2.1(c), property must be registered in the name of the trustee for a particular trust in order for transfer to the trustee to be effective.
1 The Internal Revenue Code provides that the terms ‘real estate mortgage investment conduit’ and ‘REMIC’ mean any entity—(1) to which an election to be treated as a REMIC applies for the taxable year and all prior taxable years, (2) all of the interests in which are regular interests or residual interests, (3) which has 1 (and only 1) class of residual interests (and all distributions, if any, with respect to such interests are pro rata), (4) as of the close of the 3rd month beginning after the startup day and at all times thereafter, substantially all of the assets of which consist of qualified mortgages and permitted investments. Trust property cannot be held with incomplete endorsements and assignments that do not indicate that the property is held in trust by a trustee for a specific beneficiary trust.
The homeowner alleges that this defect means that U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” and Bank of America N.A are not valid Note Holders.
I. ARGUMENTS
A. THE PLAINTIFF TRUST HAS NO STANDING TO FORECLOSE BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN NO VALID ENFORCEABLE ASSIGNMENT TO THE TRUSTEE OF THE TRUST
A-1.
The Plaintiff Trust Is A New York Common Law Trust Governed By
New York Law Based On Its Trust Agreement. U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” This trust is not the originator of this loan and name is not on the note. This trust is not even a bank, a bank is its trustee, and the entity is not the originator of the mortgage, the servicer, or even a bank.
Instead, this entity is a New York common law trust created by an agreement known as “Pooling and Service Agreement.” Allegedly, the Debtor`s home loan, along with other loans, were pooled into a trust and converted into mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) that can be bought and sold by investors — a process known as securitization. The underlying promissory notes of each and every mortgage held by the Trust serve as generate a potential income stream for investors.
The Trust allegedly holding the Plaintiff’s note was created on or about August 1, 2007, and is identified as “U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,””.
The Trust, by its terms, set a “closing date” of August 30, 2007 The terms of the Trust are contained in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA” or the “Trust agreement”), which is an approximately 400-page document that creates the Trust and defines the rights, duties and obligations of the parties to the Trust Agreement.
The PSA is filed under oath with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is attached to as an Exhibit 1.
The PSA also incorporates by reference a separate document called the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement (“MLPA”). These various documents, and hence the acquisition of The Trust, being sued through its trustee, is a New York Corporate Trust formed to act as a “REMIC” trust (defined below) pursuant to the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”). Pursuant to the terms of the Trust and the applicable Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) regulations adopted and incorporated into the terms of the Trust, the “closing date” of the Trust (August 30, 2007) is also the “Startup Day” for the Trust under the REMIC provisions of the IRC.
The Startup Day is significant because the IRC ties the limitations upon which a REMIC trust may be receive its assets to this date. The relevant portion of the IRC addressing the definition of a REMIC is: the mortgage assets for the Trust, are governed under the law of the State of New York pursuant to section 11.03 of the PSA.
(a) General rule. For purposes of this title, the terms ‘real estate mortgage
investment conduit and ‘REMIC’ mean any entity (1) to which an election to be treated as a REMIC applies for the taxable year and all prior taxable years, (2) all of the interests in which are regular interests or residual interests, (3) which has 1 (and only 1) class of residual interests (and all distributions, if any, with respect to such interests are pro rata),(4) as of the close of the 3rd month beginning after the startup day and at all times thereafter, substantially all of the assets of which consist of qualified
mortgages and permitted investments.26 U.S.C.S. § 860D(emphasis added).
It is settled that the duties and powers of a trustee are defined by the terms of the trust agreement and are tempered only by the fiduciary obligation of loyalty to the beneficiaries (see, United States Trust Co. v First Nat’l City Bank, 57 A.D.2d 285, 295-296, aff’d 45 NY2d 869; Restatement [Second] of Trusts § 186, comments a, d). See In re IBJ Schroder Bank & Trust Co., 271 A.D.2d 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2000).
26 U.S.C. 860G(d)(2) states:
(A) Any contribution to facilitate a clean-up call (as defined in regulations) or a qualified liquidation.
(B) Any payment in the nature of a guarantee.
(C) Any contribution during the 3-month period beginning on the startup day.
(D) Any contribution to a qualified reserve fund by any holder of a residual
interest in the REMIC.
(E) Any other contribution permitted in regulations.
The PSA (primarily in section 9.12) addresses these sections of the IRC by obliging the parties to the Trust to avoid any action which might jeopardize the tax status of any REMIC and/or impose any tax upon the Trust for prohibited contributions or prohibited transactions.
These PSA provisions are important to the analysis of the facts in this case because of the interplay between the New York trust law, the IRC’s REMIC provisions, and the PSA’s incorporation of the IRC REMIC provisions.
A-2.
The Trust Instrument/PSA Sets Forth A Specific Time, Method And Manner Of REMIC after the startup day, there is hereby imposed a tax for the taxable year of the REMIC in which the contribution is received equal to 100 percent of the amount of such contribution.” 26 U.S.C. 860G(d)(2) states:
(2) Exceptions. Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any contribution which is made in cash and is described in any of the following subparagraphs:
(A) Any contribution to facilitate a clean-up call (as defined in regulations) or a qualified liquidation.
(B) Any payment in the nature of a guarantee.(C) Any contribution during the 3-month period beginning on the startup day.
(D) Any contribution to a qualified reserve fund by any holder of a residual interest in the REMIC.
(E) Any other contribution permitted in regulations. The PSA (primarily in section 9.12) addresses these sections of the IRC by obliging the parties to the Trust to avoid any action which might jeopardize the tax status of any REMIC and/or impose any tax upon the Trust for prohibited contributions or prohibited transactions.
These PSA provisions are important to the court’s analysis of the facts in this case because of the interplay between the New York trust law, the IRC’s REMIC provisions, and the PSA’s incorporation of the IRC REMIC provisions.
The Trust Instrument/PSA Sets Forth A Specific Time, Method And Manner Of The IRC also provides definitions of prohibited transactions and prohibited contributions which are relevant to this case as well. In the context of this case, the relevant statute is the definition of prohibited contributions which is as follows:
26 U.S.C. 860G(d)(1) states:
Except as provided in section 860G(d)(2), “if any amount is contributed to a Funding The Trust.
The Trust seeking to foreclose on the Debtor has included in the terms of its Trust agreement (the PSA) a specific time, method and manner of funding the Trust with its assets.
The most critical time is the Trust’s closing date, August 30, 2007. According to the terms of the PSA, all of the assets of the Trust were to be transferred to the Trust on or before the closing date.
This requirement is to ensure that the Trust will receive REMIC status and thus exempt from federal income taxation. Section 2.02(a) of the PSA provides for a window of 90 days after the Trust closing date in which the Trust may complete any missing paperwork or finalize any documents necessary to complete the transfers of assets from the depositor to the
Trust.
B. THE TRUST AGREEMENT PROVIDES THE ONLY MANNER IN WHICH ASSETS MAY BE PROPERLY TRANSFERRED TO THE TRUST AND ANY ACT IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE TRUST AGREEMENT IS VOID
Thus, for an asset to become an asset of the Trust it must have been transferred to the Trust within the time set forth in the PSA. The additional 90 days in the timeline requirement is incorporated from the REMIC provisions of the IRC to provide a “clean-up period” for a REMIC to complete the documents associated with the transfers of assets to a REMIC after the startup day (which is also the Trust closing date). Therefore, according to the plain terms of the Trust agreement in this case, the closing date/startup date was August 30, 2007 and the last day for transfer of assets into the Trust was August 30, 2007.
B-1.
Transfer of Assets to the Trust Pursuant to the Trust Instrument/PSA As a generic matter, there are several methods by which the underlying assets of the Trust, specifically the individual promissory notes, might be transferred or conveyed. A trust’s ability to transact is restricted to the actions authorized by its trust documents. In this case, the Trust documents permit only one specific method of transfer to the Trust. That method is set forth in Section 2.01 of the PSA: LINK TO PSA
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/934377/000137940207000043/ex4_1.txt
This date is defined in the Trust instrument at page 25 of 397 in exhibit 1. This requirement is found at Section 2.01;
”Pursuant to the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement, each Seller sold, transferred, assigned, set over and otherwise conveyed to the Depositor, without recourse, all the right, title and interest of such Seller in and to the assets sold by it in the Trust Fund…. In connection with such sale, the Depositor has delivered to, and deposited with, the Trustee or the Custodian, as its agent, the following documents or instruments with respect to each Mortgage Loan so assigned: (i) the original Mortgage Note, including any riders thereto, endorsed without recourse (A) in blank or to the order of U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,””
(The analysis of this transfer language requires the a consideration of each part of the above paragraph. In this paragraph of the language in the Trust Agreement, the first statement is one of transfer, stating “the Depositor has delivered to and deposited with the Trustee or the Custodian the following
documents”. The key document is the original mortgage note, which requires mandatory endorsements found in this language: “the original mortgage note….endorsed without recourse” followed by two alternatives which are phrased in the either/or format. The first labeled “A” states “in blank or to the order of “U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,”
Stacked upon the top of this requirement of an unbroken chain of endorsements is the requirement of certification of the final contents of the collateral file for the benefit of the Trust.
This requirement is found at Exhibit 1 to the MLPA (Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement), which is an attachment to and incorporated as a part of the PSA in Section 2.01.
With respect to each Mortgage Loan, the Mortgage File shall include each of the following items, which shall be available for inspection by the Purchaser or its designee, and which shall be delivered to the Purchaser or its designee pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.(a) The original Mortgage Note, including any riders thereto, endorsed without recourse to the order of ““Pay to the order of U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,”,”and showing to the extent available to the related Mortgage Loan Seller an unbroken chain of endorsements from the original payee thereof to the Person endorsing it to the Trustee;
The foregoing requirement demonstrates clearly that while the parties to the securitization made provisions whereby promissory notes for this Trust might be delivered in blank to the Trustee; there were two requirements that were mandatory. First, all notes sold to the Trust were required
to have an unbroken chain of endorsements from the original payee to the person endorsing it to the Trustee.
This requirement stems from a particular business concern in securitization, namely to evidence that there was in fact a “true sale” of the securitized assets and that they are in no way still property of the originator, sponsor, or depositor, and thus not subject to the claims of creditors of the originator, sponsor, or depositor. Second, there was a requirement that ultimately, within 90 days of the Trust closing date, the actual promissory note must be endorsed over to the trustee for the specific trust to effectively transfer the asset into the trust and therefore make the subject promissory note Trust property.
This requirement finds support in logic and law and is, in fact, the ancient and settled law of New York on this issue.
B-2.
New York Law Governs The Mandatory Requirements To Effectively Transfer an Asset To A Trust It is not contested that securitization trusts, such as the defendant, are subject to the common law of New York. Conveyed to it, that –that the –that they will have the right to establish their ownership as investors in that collateral. Second, there was a requirement that ultimately, within 90 days of the Trust closing date, the actual promissory note must be endorsed over to the trustee for the specific trust to
effectively transfer the asset into the trust and therefore make the sunject promissory note Trust property. This requirement finds support in logic and law and is, in fact, the ancient and settled law of New York on this issue.
.
B-3. New York Law Governs The Mandatory Requirements To Effectively Transfer
An Asset To A Trust It is not contested that securitization trusts, such as the defendant, are subject to the common law of New York. New York’s trust law is ancient and settled.
There area few principles of New York Trust law that are particularly important to the analysis of whether any particular asset is an asset of a given trust.
Under New York law, the analysis of whether an asset is trust property is determined under the law of gifts. order to have a valid inter vivos gift, there must be a delivery of the gift (As early as 1935, in Burgoyne v. James, 282 N.Y.S. 18, 21 (1935), the New York Supreme Court recognized that business trusts, also known as ““Massachusetts trusts”, are deemed to be common law trusts. See also In re Estate of Plotkin, 290 N.Y.S.2d 46, 49 (N.Y. Sur. 1968) (characterizing common stock trust funds as ““common law trust[s]””). Other jurisdictions are in accord. See, e.g., Mayfield v. First ’Nat’l Bank of Chattanooga, 137 F.2d 1013 (6th Cir. 1943) (applying common law trust principles to a pool of mortgage participation certificate holders).
In the case of a trust where there is a trustee other than the grantor, transfer will be governed by the existing rules as to intent and delivery (the elements of a gift)””In re Becker, 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 51773U, 4 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2004). physical delivery of the subject of the gift) or a constructive or symbolic delivery (such as by an instrument of gift) sufficient to divest the donor of dominion and control over the property and “what is sufficient to constitute delivery ‘must be tailored to suit the circumstances of the case’”.
The delivery rule requires that “‘[the] delivery necessary to consummate a gift must be as perfect as the nature of the property and the circumstances and surroundings of the parties will reasonably permit.’” “Under New York law there are four essential elements of a valid trust of personal property: (1) A designated beneficiary; (2) a designated trustee, who must not be the beneficiary; (3) a fund or other property sufficiently designated or identified to enable title thereto to pass to the trustee; and (4) the actual delivery of the fund or other property, or of a legal assignment thereof to the trustee, with the intention of passing legal title thereto to him as trustee.” There is no trust under the common law until there is a valid delivery of the asset in question to the Trust. (see, Matter of Szabo, 10 N.Y.2d 94, 98-99, supra; Speelman v Pascal, 10 N.Y.2d 313, 318-320, supra; Beaver v. Beaver, 117 N.Y. 421, 428-429, supra; Matter of Cohn, 187 App. Div. 392, 95) as cited in Gruen v. Gruen, 68 If the trust fails to acquire the N.Y.2d 48, 56 (N.Y. 1986).
(Matter of Szabo, supra, at p. 98). (id.; Vincent v Rix, 248 N.Y. 76, 83; Matter of Van Alstyne, supra, at p 309; see, Beaver v. Beaver, supra, at p 428) as cited in Gruen v. Gruen, 68 N.Y.2d 48, 56-57 (N.Y. 1986) .
Brown v. Spohr, 180 N.Y. 201, 209-210 (N.Y. 1904). Until the delivery to the trustee is performed by the settlor, or until the securities are definitely ascertained by the declaration of the settlor, when he himself is the trustee, no rights of the beneficiary in a trust created without consideration arise (cf. Riegel v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 266 App. Div. 586; Matter of Gurlitz [Lynde], 105 Misc 30, aff’d 190 App. Div. 907, supra; Marx v. Marx, 5 Misc 2d 42) as cited in Sussman v. Sussman, 61 A.D.2d 838 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1978). and Trusts Law (EPTL) section 7-2.1(c) authorizes investment trusts to acquire real or personal property “in the name of the trust as such name is designated in the instrument creating said trust.”
Further, the actual contracts of the parties, which include the custodial agreements, the mortgage loan purchase agreements, and the trust instrument known as the “pooling and servicing agreement,” prescribe a very specific method of transfer of the notes and mortgages to the Trust.
Because the method of transfer is set forth in the Trust instrument, it is not subject to any variance or exception and Trusts Law (EPTL) section 7-2.1(c) authorizes investment trusts to acquire real or personal property “in the name of the trust as such name is designated in the instrument creating said trust.” Further, the actual contracts of the parties, which include the custodial agreements, the mortgage loan purchase agreements, and the trust instrument known as the “pooling and servicing agreement,” prescribe a very specific method of transfer of the notes and mortgages to the Trust.
Because the method of transfer is set forth in the Trust instrument, it is not subject to any variance or exception.
In an action against the individual Debtor as trustee, based on the theory of breach of fiduciary obligation, the Trust documents require that the promissory notes and mortgages be transferred to the Trustee, which under New York trust law requires valid delivery. The question then arises — “What constitutes valid delivery to the Trustee?” property, then there is no trust over that property which may be enforced.
An attempt to convey to a trust will fail if there is no designated beneficiary in the conveyance.
In the context of mortgage-backed securitization, it is clear that registration of the notes and mortgages in the name of the trustee for the trust is necessary for effective transfer to the trust.
Within the Statutes of New York governing Trusts, Estates Powers complaint was properly dismissed on the ground that he had acquired no title or separate control of the goods and, hence, there was no actual trust over the property to breach. Kermani v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 4 A.D.2d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 1957). 15 Wells Fargo Bank v. Farmer, 2008 N.Y. Misc Lexis 3248.
Courts may neither ignore the actual provisions of transaction documents nor create contractual remedies that were omitted from the governing contracts by the contracting parties. See Schmidt v. Magnetic Head Corp., 468 N.Y.S.2d 649, 654 (N.Y. App.Div. 1983) (““It is fundamental that we enforce contracts and do not rewrite them . . . An obligation undertaken by one of the parties that is intended as a promise . . . should be expressed as such, and not left to mplication.”” (citations omitted)); Morlee Sales Corp. v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 172 N.E.2d 280, 282 (N.Y.1961) (““[T]the cports may not by construction add or excise terms . . . and thereby ‘make a new contract for the parties under the guise of nterpret[ation].’““ (quoting Heller v. Pope, 250 N.E. 881, 882 (N.Y. 1928))
When the requirements of transfer to the trustee are viewed in the context of the corporate or business trust indenture, more information about compliance with these requirements becomes apparent.
One must first understand that “[t]he corporate trustee has very little in common with the ordinary trustee The trustee under a corporate indenture has his [or her] rights and duties defined, not by the fiduciary relationship, but exclusively by the terms of the agreement.
His [or her] status is more that of a trustee.”Indeed, “[a]n indenture trustee is unlike the ordinary trustee. In contrast with the latter, some cases have confined the duties of the indenture trustee to those set forth in the indenture.” obligations are defined by the terms of the indenture agreement. Settled that the duties and powers of a trustee are defined by the terms of the trust agreement and are beneficiaries”. Take delivery in strict compliance with the terms of the PSA/Trust document.
Further, given that New York Estates Powers and Trusts Law section 7-2.1(c) authorizes a trustee to acquire property “in the name of the trust as such name is designated in the a stakeholder than one of The indenture trustee, it has been said, resembles a stakeholder whose Moreover,“[i]t is tempered only by the fiduciary obligation of loyalty to the clear import of these cases and statutes is that the delivery of an asset to a trustee under the terms of a corporate indenture requires strict compliance with the mandatory transfer terms of the trust indenture.
AG Capital Funding Partners, L.P. v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 5766, 7 (N.Y. 2008) Green v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co., 223 A.D. 12, 227 N.Y.S. 252 (1st Dept.), aff’d, 248 N.Y. 627 (1928); Hazzard v. Chase National Bank, 159 Misc. 57, 287 N.Y.S. 541 (Sup. Ct. 1936), aff’d, 257 A.D. 950, 14 N.Y.S.2d 147 (1st Dept.), aff’d, 282 N.Y. 652, cert. denied, 311 U.S. 708 (1940).19 See Meckel v. Continental Resources, 758 F.2d 811, 816 (2d Cir. 1985) as cited in Ambac Indem. Corp. v. Bankers Trust Co., 151 Misc. 2d 334, 336 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1991).20see, United States Trust Co. v First Nat’l City Bank, 57 A.D.2d 285, 295-296, aff’d 45 NY2d 869; Restatement [Second] of Trusts § 186, comments a, d) as cited in In re IBJ Schroder Bank & Trust Co., 271 A.D.2d 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2000).
Transfer instruments creating said trust property,” there should be little doubt that for transfer to a trustee to be effective, the property must be registered in the name of the trustee for the particular trust. Trust property cannot be, as the Plaintiff argues, held with incomplete endorsements and assignments that do not indicate that the property is held in trust by a trustee for a specific beneficiary trust. In fact, it is clear in the law of New York that an attempt to transfer to a trust which fails to specify both a trustee and a beneficiary is ineffective as a conveyance to the Trust. “The failure to name a beneficiary for the Trustee renders the assignment without merit. This position is further supported logically in the common law of New York by the following propositions:
(2) The delivery necessary to consummate a gift must be as perfect as the nature of the property and the circumstances and surroundings of the parties will reasonably permit; there must be a change of dominion and ownership; intention or mere words cannot supply the place of an actual surrender of control and authority over the thing intended to be given.
It is the consummation of the donor’s intent to give that completes the transaction. Intention alone, no matter how fully established, is of no avail
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Farmer, 2008 NY Slip Op 51133U, (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008) (cf. Riegel v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 266 App. Div. 586; Matter of Gurlitz [Lynde], 105 Misc. 30, aff’d 190 App. Div. 907, supra; Marx v. Marx, 5 Misc 2d 42) as cited in Sussman v. Sussman, 61 A.D.2d 838 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1978). Vincent v. Putnam, 248 N.Y. 76, 82-84 (N.Y. 1928).
Without the consummated act of delivery, how could one logically argue that delivering a promissory note endorsed in blank (making it bearer paper) into a trustee’s vault is “delivery beyond the authority and control of the donor” when the vault is managed by the agent of the donor? If the donor were to claim that the promissory note “If the donor delivers the property to the third person simply for the purpose of his delivering it to the donee as the agent of the donor, the gift is not complete until the property has actually been delivered to the donee.
Such a delivery is not absolute, for the ordinary principle of agency applies, by which the donor can revoke the authority of the agent, and resume possession of the property, at any time before the authority is executed.”” were its property, not the trustee’s, there would be no evidentiary basis for the trustee to claim ownership.
Accordingly, New York law expressly requires that for property to be validly delivered to a trust, the property must pass completely out of the control of the donor (and its agents): Another case addressing this issue holds that “In order that delivery to a third person shall be effective, he must be the agent of the donee.
Delivery to an agent of the donor is ineffective, as the agency could be terminated before delivery to the intended donee.”Trustees for securitizations often occupy many roles simultaneously and conflictingly both as document custodians and trustees for myriad thousands of securitizations as well as for various parties who are active in the securitization process including originators, servicers, sponsors and depositors. Accordingly, it is inconceivable that anything other than registration into
Phillippsen v. Emigrant Indus.Sav. Bank, N.Y.S.2d 133, 137-138 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1948). (Beaver v. Beaver, supra, 117 N.Y. 421, 428, 22 N.E. 940, 941, 6 L.R.A. 403, Am.St.Rep. 531). See, also, Grant Trust & Savings Co. v. Tucker, 49 Ind. App. 345; Furenes v. Eide, 109 Ia. 511; Dickeschied v. Exchange Bank, W. Va. 340; Love v. Francis, Mich. 181; [**428] Merchant v. Building Co. [***15] , Ohio Circuit Ct. 190.) In re Nat’l Commer. Bank & Trust Co., 257 A.D. 868, 869-870 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 1939) citing Vincent v. Rix, supra v. Rix, supra; Bump v. Pratt, Hun, 201.
“the name of the trust as such name is designated in the instrument creating said trust property” could ever qualify as delivery to any particular securitization trust. Absent such registration, there would be nothing that would indicate which of thousands of trusts in the care of a trustee a particular promissory note might belong to or if it were the personal property of the This point was recently slammed home to the public consciousness in a watershed decision out of the State of Massachusetts. On January 7, 2011, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts—the highest court in that state—rendered a unanimous verdict in a case captioned U.S. Natl. Bank Assn., Trustee, v. Ibanez, For ABFC 20050PT 1 Trust, ABFC Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005-0PT 1, No. SJC-10694, (Mass. Jan. 7, 2011).
While that ruling may or may not be binding upon this case; it is very much contrary to the mortgage securitization industry’s position in cases involving the foreclosure of mortgage loans which have allegedly been securitized. The facts of the case in Massachusetts and the facts of this instant case are similar.
The case was a ruling on two consolidated cases – both cases were filed by banks (as trustees for two separate trusts) to quiet title on properties they had foreclosed and purchased at the foreclosure sale to satisfy the mortgagor’s debt.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that neither bank proved that its trust owned the mortgages when they foreclosed on the homes; therefore, neither had title to the foreclosed properties and that their foreclosures were void. Effectively, this put the borrowers back into the place they were before the foreclosure.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did not tell the homeowners they are allowed to shirk their obligation to pay their mortgages, which are still outstanding, valid obligations.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did, however, sharply instruct the banks that they must have the proper documentation which demonstrates a valid right to foreclose before a foreclosure can be carried out.
It is well worth noting the conclusion of the Massachusetts Ibanez opinion. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court noted that “The legal principles and requirements we set forth are well established in our case law and our statutes.
All that has changed is the [banks’] apparent failure to abide by those principles and requirements in the rush to sell mortgage-backed securities.” Just as the principles and requirements of Massachusetts law are well-founded, so too are those of New York law, and they should be upheld even if adherence to the law is inconvenient for banks rushing to sell mortgage-backed securities.
B-3 THE INTENT TO TRANSFER AN ASSET TO THE TRUST IS NOT A TRANSFER TO THE TRUST
The contents of these statutes, cases and contracts lead to one inescapable conclusion: the intent of the parties and the requirements of the contracts were that the assets be conveyed to the Trusts by the Trust closing dates.
For a transfer to any foreclosure industry has chosen to argue that it is clear that it was the parties’“intent” to transfer these assets and therefore “no court” would ever declare that these assets were not transferred to these trusts. The controlling law is overwhelmingly against the industry in this position. The failure to deliver the notes and mortgages to these trusts as required by the trust instruments is a default under the terms of every agreement that these parties executed, including their agreements for payment guarantees with the monoline bond insurers. The securitization industry chose to create its securitization trusts under New York law precisely because the law was ancient and settled.
Now that the actions of the foreclosure industry contradicts that law, parties such as the defendant trust are left to argue hope against precedent. The well-settled New York trust law provides that “A mere intention to make a gift which has not been carried into effect, confers no right upon the intended beneficiary.
There must be also delivery beyond the power of further control and dominion.” The foreclosure industry has chosen to argue that it is clear that it was the parties’“intent” to transfer these assets and therefore “no court” would ever declare that these assets were not transferred to these trusts.
The controlling law is overwhelmingly against the Movant`s in this position.
The failure to deliver the notes and mortgages to these trusts as required by the trust instruments is a default under the terms of every agreement that these parties executed, including their agreements for payment guarantees with the monoline bond insurers.
The securitization industry chose to create its securitization trusts under New York law precisely because the law was ancient and settled.
Now that the actions of the foreclosure industry contradicts that law, parties such as the Plaintiff trust are left to argue hope against precedent. The well-settled New York trust law provides that “A mere intention to make a gift which has not been carried into effect, confers no right upon the intended beneficiary. There must be also delivery beyond the power of further control and dominion.” Equity will not help out an incomplete delivery.
If the agent of the donor has failed to make the delivery expected equity will particular trust to be effective, there should have been a registration of the assets into “the name of the trust as such name is designated in the instrument creating said trust property”—this is the only method by which these assets could have been “divested from the possession and title” of the donors. In response to the lucidity of the controlling law on this issue, the mortgage (Vincent v. Rix, 248 N.Y. 76, 85 v. Rix, 248 N.Y. 76, 85; Matter of Green, 247 App. Div. 540; McCarthy v. Pieret, 281 N.Y. 407, 409.) as cited by In re FIRST TRUST & DEPOSIT CO., 264 A.D. 940, 941 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t 1942) not declare him a trustee for the donee. “Thus, Thornton on Gifts and Advancements (§140) notes: “In determining whether there has been a valid delivery, the situation of the subject of the gift must be considered.
If it is actually present, and capable of delivery without serious effort, it is not too much to say that there must be an actual delivery, although the donor need not in person or by agent hand the article to the donee, if the latter assumes the possession.” There was absolutely nothing in the physical nature of the papers to be delivered in this case, or in the physical condition or the surroundings of the donor, that made a symbolical delivery necessary of the thing given has been very largely relaxed, but a symbolical delivery is sufficient delivery as nearly perfect and complete as the circumstances will allow.
Some cases have confined the duties of the indenture trustee to those set forth in the indenture. From this context springs the seminal rule of law that effectively causes the parties to the Trust agreement and the Trust to be “gored by their own bull”.
New It is true that the old rule requiring an actual delivery only when the conditions are so adverse to actual delivery as to make a symbolical Further, the failure to convey to a trust per the controlling trust document is not a matter that may be cured by the breaching party. New York law is unflinchingly clear that a trustee has only the authority granted by the instrument under which he holds, either deed or will.
This fundamental rule has existed from the beginning and is still law. An indenture trustee is unlike the ordinary trustee. In contrast with the latter, Vincent v. Putnam, 248 N.Y. 76, 82-84 (N.Y. 1928) In re Van Alstyne, 207 N.Y. 298, 309-310 (N.Y. 1913).31 In re Van Alstyne, 207 N.Y. 298, 309-310 (N.Y. 1913). Allison & Ver Valen Co. v. McNee, 170 Misc. 144, 146 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1939). Ambac Indem. Corp. v. Bankers Trust Co., 151 Misc. 2d 334, 336 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1991).
Therefore, the trustees for these trusts may only acquire assets in the manner set forth in the trust Instrument and may not acquire assets in violation of the trust instrument.
To the extent that any assets were not conveyed to these trusts as required and when required by the trust instrument, they are not assets of the trusts and the trustee cannot correct this deficiency now since the funding period provided in the Trust instruments passed many years ago.
The attempts to acquire assets by these trusts which violate the terms of the Trust instrument are void.
Therefore, late assignments, improper chains of title, late endorsements, improper chains of title in the endorsements and the attempt to transfer to the trusts by foreclosure deed are just a number of the many examples of actions which are void if taken by a party to the indenture who is attempting to transfer property to the Trustee for the Trust in violation of the trust instrument.
C. THE TRUST NEVER PROPERLY ACQUIRED THE MORTGAGE NOTE AND THE TRUST CANNOT CURE ITS FATAL STANDING DEFECT
Therefore, the trustees for these trusts may only acquire assets in the manner set forth in the trust instrument and may not acquire assets in violation of the trust instrument.
To the extent that any assets were not conveyed to these trusts as required and when required by the trust instrument, they are not assets of the trusts and the trustee cannot correct this deficiency now since the funding period provided in the Trust instruments passed many years ago.
The attempt to acquire assets by these trusts which violate the terms of the Trust instrument are void. Therefore, late assignments, improper chains of title, late endorsements, improper chains of title in the endorsements and the attempt to transfer to the trusts by foreclosure deed are just a number of the many examples of actions which are void if taken by a party to the indenture who is attempting to transfer property to the Trustee for the Trust in violation of the trust instrument.
C. THE TRUST NEVER PROPERLY ACQUIRED THE MORTGAGE NOTE AND THE TRUST CANNOT CURE ITS FATAL STANDING DEFECT
York’s law is so well-settled regarding the limitations of a trustee’s power to act that New York’s Estates Powers and Trust Law Section 7-2.4 states: § 7-2.4 Act of trustee in contravention of trust If the trust is expressed in the instrument creating the estate of the trustee, every sale, conveyance or other act of the trustee in contravention of the trust, except as authorized by this article and by any other provision of law, is void.
Under New York law there is no trust over property that has not been properly transferred to a trust. The Defendant Trust stated to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in filings under oath that it has assets in excess of $400 million.
To acquire assets, the Trust must be funded in accordance with the requirements of the PSA/Trust documents. The pertinent terms of the agreement are found at §2.01 (Conveyance of Trust Fund) of the PSA. This section details how the mortgage notes in the instant case were transferred from Bank of America NA. (as Originator) to ” U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” .
The Subject note is in Blank and is not made out to the name of the Movant. U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” Bank of America NA, is the alleged mortgage holder as indicated on the note. “Pay to the order of U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” does not have the authority to get the lift of STAY, there is no “showing” of an unbroken chain of endorsements in the documents provided to the Debtor. “According to the requirements set forth in the Trust Agreement.
A series of endorsements of the promissory note reflective of each party who had an interest in the promissory note culminating with a blank endorsement from the depositor at the very minimum.”
The Trust never possessed the mortgage note per the terms of the PSA (Pooling and Service Agreement). Further, in the PSA’s exhibits, Exhibit One sets forth the contents of the collateral file for each mortgage loan that is trust property and further includes a final specific endorsement to the Trustee for the specific trust in this case to effect a final transfer to the Trust and to make the subject note trust property. Any attempt by ” U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” Bank of America NA, to transfer the promissory note to the Trust at this late date would fail for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that the closing date of August 30, 2007 passed nearly 6 years ago.
By the terms of the Trust and the applicable provision of the Internal Revenue Code incorporated into and a part of the Trust agreement, the promissory note cannot be transferred to the Trust. The Trust has never owned the subject promissory note and the Trust can never own the subject promissory note.
Trust has not provided documentation to show that it was or is entitled to the money secured by the mortgage of subject property. “U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” has offered no verifiable proof of ownership.
End ……
whole trust at link
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/934377/000137940207000041/form424b5.txt
Prospectus at link
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/934377/000137940207000043/ex4_1.txt
Pooling and Servicing agreement at link
******************************************
富国银行，通银行，
作为主服务商和证券管理员，
和
美国银行全国协会
作为受托人
共同使用及服务协议
日期为2007年8月30日
按揭直通证书
系列2007-7
上Mtge契据号：668409245
信托的名称：美国2007-7资金信托银证券
据称原贷款人的姓名;美国银行不适用。
截止日期：2007年8月三十日或约
截止日期：2007年8月1日
报告首先一个
摘录主体的贷款融资和服务协议的第二条。该链接还提供以供参考。在利益方，其实是“支付给美国银行全国协会的顺序，如受托人为美国融资公司按揭直通证书，系列2007-7，无追索权的银证券的持有人，”和记和抵押必须在该名称与背书是正确的。在这种情况下，值得注意的是在空白和美国银行的名称
是音符可转让票据或不可转让票据？
第二条
CONVEYANCE按揭贷款;
证书的原签发
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/934377/000137940207000043/ex4_1.txt
第2.01输送按揭贷款。
（一）存款人，同时与签立及交付本协议，特此出售，转让，分配，设置结束，否则传达给受托人代表本信托为Certificateholders的利益，无追索权，所有权利，所有权及并于-49存款人的利益 –
一个<page>
按揭贷款及相关抵押文件，包括所有的利息和本金收到或就按揭贷款与存款的权利（不支付本金及利息，并在抵押贷款上或在截止日期之前支付其他）下BANA服务协议及根据按揭贷款购买协议，包括存款，作为就underthe服务协议（不包括BANA服务协议除外）及相关销售协议保荐人的权利保荐人受让人的权利。
（b）在该等转让及出让方面，寄存人交付或促使交付给受托人，或代表受托人的托管人，为Certificateholders，下列文件或文书就每宗按揭的好处贷款如此分配：
（i）原按揭注意，在下面的表格赞同手动或传真签署：“支付给美国银行全国协会的顺序，如受托人为美国融资公司按揭直通证书，系列2007-7银证券的持有人，无追索权“，与所有必要的干预代言代言显示从发端一个完整的链条，以受托人（每一个这样的代言足以转让方的所有权利，所有权和利益的认可，作为票据持有人或受让人物，并该按揭注），且在任何按揭贷款的情况下，起源于纽约的一个NYCEMA的NYCEMA，新的抵押贷款票据（如适用），综合抵押贷款票据及综合按揭记录的国家;
证券化信托
默认的通知表明，原来的债权人是美国银行，NA尚Movant的名称是在普通法信托的名称。信托是通过一个共同使用及服务协议（“PSA”）创造了一个纽约普通法的信任。根据PSA，贷款据称汇集成一个信任并转换成抵押贷款支持证券。在PSA提供了一个截止日期2007年8月30日，本信托。由于载列如下，这是被要求在其所有资产存入信托的日期。 PSA的规定，纽约州法律管辖收购按揭资产信托。
信托是作为一个REMIC信任。根据国内税收法典（“IRC”）的REMIC规定信托的截止日期也是启动日的信托。截止日期/启动一天是显著的，因为信托基金的所有资产都被转移到信托或之前截止日期，以确保信托收到了REMIC状态。
在IRC提供的相关部分指出：“除第860G（四）提供（2），’如果任何数额的启动一天后促成了REMIC，兹征收税项REMIC中的纳税年度它的贡献被接收等于100％的这种贡献量。“26 USC §860G（D）（1）。
信任的进行交易的能力被限制在授权其信托文件的操作。
房主称，在这里，信托文件只允许一个特定转移到信托的方法，载于PSA的§2.01。 62.01节规定的存款人提供受托人与原按揭票据，空白背书或者背书如下：美国银行全国协会，作为受托人的银证券持有人美国融资公司按揭直通证书，2007系列 – 7，无追索权“，根据适用的协议，无追索权。”所有的事先干预代言必须出示代言的一个完整的链条从发端到受托人。
根据纽约地产大国和信托法§7-2.1（三），属性必须在受托人的名义登记，以便转移到受托人的特定信任是有效的。
1国内税收法典规定，术语“房地产抵押贷款投资管道”和“REMIC”是指任何实体（1）到被视为一个REMIC选举适用于该课税年度及之前所有纳税年度，（2 ）所有，其中有普通权益或剩余权益的利益，（3），已于1（只有1）班的剩余权益（以及所有分派（如有），对于这样的利益是按比例），（4）作为启动日及以后在任何时候都接近第3个月，自此后，其中绝大部分由合格的抵押贷款和获准投资的资产。信托财产不能举行与不完整的代言和分配不显示该物业以信托形式持有由受托人指定受益人的信任。
房主称，这一缺陷意味着，美国银行全国协会，作为受托人的银证券持有人美国融资公司按揭直通证书，系列2007-7，无追索权“，而美国银行是无效的票据持有人。
一，自变量
A.原告信托已没有资格来取消抵押品赎回权因为一直没有有效的可执行的分配给信托的受托人
A-1。
原告信托的管治由一个纽约普通法信托
纽约法律基于其信托协议。美国银行全国协会，作为受托人为美国融资公司按揭直通证书，系列2007-7，无追索权的银证券的持有人，“这种信任是不是这个贷款和名称的鼻祖是不是就说明，这种信任是甚至没有一家银行，银行是其受托人，而该实体是不是房贷，服务商，甚至是银行的鼻祖。
相反，这个实体是由被称为一项协议，建立了纽约普通法信任“池及服务协议”。据称，债务人单曲住房贷款，以及其他贷款，汇集成一个信任并转换成抵押贷款支持证券（“MBS”），可以购买和出售投资 – 被称为证券化的过程。本信托所持有的每一个抵押贷款的基本承兑票据作为为投资者带来潜在的收入来源。
信托涉嫌持有原告的票据于或约2007年8月1日创建的，并且被标识为“美国银行全国协会，作为受托人的银证券持有人美国融资公司按揭直通证书，系列2007-7，无追索权“，”中。
信托，其条款，设置的信托基金的条款包含在汇集和服务协议一个“截止日期”2007年度8月30日（“PSA”或“信托协议”），这是一个大约400页创建信任和定义的权利，义务和当事人的责任信托协议文件。
PSA是提交下誓言与美国证券交易委员会，并连接到作为一个图表1。
在PSA还采用参照一个名为抵押贷款购买协议（“防止洗钱法”），单独的文档。这些不同的文件，因此，收购信托，通过其信托人被起诉，是一家致力于充当“渠道」信托（定义见下文）根据美国国内收入法典（”IRC“）纽约企业信任。根据法规所采用，并纳入信托的“截止日期”的信托基金（2007年8月30日）的条款，信托及适用国税局（“IRS”）的条款也是“启动日”根据IRC的REMIC规定的信托基金。
启动日是显著，因为在IRC绑在其上REMIC信任可接收其资产，以这个日期的限制。在IRC的寻址REMIC的定义的相关部分：信托的抵押贷款资产，在纽约根据PSA的第11.03国的法律管辖。
（一）一般规则。为了这个称号，术语“房地产抵押
投资导管和’REMIC“是指任何实体（1）到被视为一个REMIC选举适用于该课税年度及之前所有纳税年度，（2）所有在其中的普通权益或剩余权益的利益，（ 3），其中有1（只有1）班的剩余权益（以及所有分派（如有），对于这样的利益是按比例），（4）作为结束3个月的启动日之后，并在开始所有时间，其中绝大部分的资产包括合格
抵押贷款和许可investments.26 U.S.C.S. §860D（强调）。
据清偿的责任和受托人的权力由信托协议的条款定义，并且只能由忠诚受益人的信托义务回火（见，美国信托有限公司v第一城全国性银行，57 AD2D285，295-296，aff’d45 NY2d869;信托法重述[二]§186，评论A，D）。看在重新日本兴业施罗德银行及信托有限公司271 AD2D322（纽约州应用。息。第一打道2000）。
26美国法典860G（D）（2）条规定：
（a）任何贡献，以方便清理的呼叫（如规章定义）或合格的清算。
（b）任何付款担保的性质。
（C）任何期间开始启动日的3个月期间的贡献。
（d）任何由一个剩余的任何持有人有资格的储备基金供款
兴趣在REMIC。
（五）在法规许可的其他贡献。
在PSA（主要在第9.12）通过要求各方信任，以避免可能危及任何REMIC的税务状况及/或本信托征收任何税，禁止捐款或受禁交易的任何行动解决了IRC的这些部分。
这些PSA的规定是因为纽约信托法，在IRC的REMIC的规定，和PSA成立为法团的IRC REMIC规定之间的相互作用重要的是在这种情况下，事实的分析。
A-2。
信托文书/ PSA福斯设置一个特定的时间，方法和方式REMIC启动一天之后，兹强加在其中的贡献收到等于100％的这种贡献量的税项REMIC的纳税年度“26 USC 860G（D）（2）条规定：
（2）例外。第（1）款并不适用于它是由现金和任何下列各款中描述的任何贡献：
（a）任何贡献，以方便清理的呼叫（如规章定义）或合格的清算。
（b）任何付款担保的性质。期间开始启动日的3个月内（C）任何贡献。
（四）通过在REMIC的剩余权益的持有人有资格的储备基金的任何贡献。
（五）在法规许可的其他贡献。在PSA（主要在第9.12）通过要求各方信任，以避免可能危及任何REMIC的税务状况及/或本信托征收任何税，禁止捐款或受禁交易的任何行动解决了IRC的这些部分。
这些PSA的规定是因为纽约信托法，在IRC的REMIC的规定，和PSA成立为法团的IRC REMIC规定之间的相互作用重要的是在这种情况下的事实，法院的分析。
信托文书/ PSA提出了一个具体的时间，方法的IRC和方式还提供了禁止交易的定义和禁止的贡献这是有关这种情况下也是如此。在这种情况下的背景下，相关法规是禁止的贡献是如下的定义：
26美国法典860G（D）（1）规定：
除了第860G（四）提供（2），“如果任何金额促成了资金的信托。
信托寻求取消抵押品赎回权的债务人已在其信托协议（PSA）信托与资产资金的具体时间，方法和方式的条款。
最关键的时间是信托的截止日期2007年8月30日，根据PSA的条款，所有的信托资产并转入信托或之前截止日期。
这项规定是为确保信托将收取REMIC状态，因此免缴联邦所得税。 2.02节PSA的（a）项规定的90天的窗口信托截止日期在本信托可完成任何单证缺失或完成要完成资产由存款人转移到任何文件后，
信托。
B.信托协议提供了唯一的方式，这资产会被正确地传送的信任和任何行为违反了信托协议属无效
因此，成为信托资产的资产必须已转移至信托载于PSA的时间内。在时间轴要求额外的90天从IRC的REMIC规定注册成立，以提供一个“清理期限”的REMIC完成启动日（这也是以后与资产的REMIC转让相关的文件信托截止日期）。因此，根据在此情况下，信托协议的平原上，在截止日期/启动日期为2007年8月30日和转移资产注入信托的最后一天是2007年8月30日。
B-1。
资产转让信托根据信托仪器/ PSA作为一个通用的事，也有通过该信托的相关资产，特别是个人的承兑票据，可能会被转移或运输的几种方法。信任的进行交易的能力被限制在授权其信托文件的操作。在这种情况下，信托文件只允许一个特定转移到信托的方法。该方法载于PSA的2.01节：链接到PSA
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/934377/000137940207000043/ex4_1.txt
这个日期是在在表现出139725页中定义的信托文书这一要求被发现在2.01节;
“根据按揭贷款购买协议，出售各卖方，转让，分配，设置结束，否则转达给存款人，无追索权，所有权利，所有权及该等卖方并通过其信托出售的资产中的权益基金….在这样的销售方面，寄存人交付给，并存放，受托人或保管人，作为其代理人，以下文件或文书就每宗按揭贷款如此分配：（i）原按揭注意事项，包括任何车友投票者，不背书空白追索权（A）或美国银行全国协会的顺序，作为受托人的银证券持有人美国融资公司按揭直通证书，系列2007-7，无追索权“的”
（本次转让语言的分析需要一个考虑上述段落的每一部分，在这一段的信托协议中的语言，第一条语句是传输之一，指出“存款人已交付并存放于受托人或托管人以下
文件“。关键文件是原始抵押注意，这需要在这个语言中强制代言：“原来的抵押贷款票据背书….无追索权”后接的措辞中的任一/或格式的两个备选方案。第一个标有“A”的国家美国的“空白或秩序”银行全国协会，作为受托人的银证券持有人美国融资公司按揭直通证书，系列2007-7，无追索权的，“
堆叠后的代言链不中断的这一要求是顶级的抵押文件的最终内容认证的信托利益的要求。
这一要求是在表1的防止洗钱法（按揭贷款购买协议），这是一个附件，并结合如第2.01 PSA的一个组成部分找到。
对于每一个抵押贷款，抵押贷款文件应包括以下各项目，须供买方查阅或其指定，并须送交根据本协议的条款向买方或其指定。 （一）原按揭注意事项，包括任何车手投票者，通过无追索权的“”支付给美国银行全国协会的顺序，作为受托人的银证券持有人美国融资公司按揭直通证书，2007系列的顺序-7，无追索权，“，”，并显示可用的相关按揭贷款卖方代言从原来的收款人及其对人也赞同受托人链不中断的程度;
上述规定清楚表明，同时各方对证券作出规定，即承兑票据对本信托可能会在空白交付给受托人;有两个要求，那是强制性的。首先，要求出售给信托所有音符
有代言的一个完整的链条从原来的收款人它认可受托人的人。
从证券化，特定的企业关注这一要求源于即证据有，实际上是一个“真实出售”的证券化资产，他们是在没有办法的鼻祖，保荐人或存款人仍然财产，因而不受为发端，赞助，或存款人的债权人的债权。其次，是最终，在信托截止日期后的90天内，实际本票必须背书给受托人的专项信托的资产有效地转移到信任，因此使主体承兑票据信托财产的要求。
这要求发现支持逻辑和法律，事实上，纽约在这个问题上的古老和结算的法律。
B-2。
纽约州法律管辖的强制性要求，有效地转移了资产转移至一个信托这是没有争议的证券化信托，如被告，须到纽约的普通法。传达给它， – 的 – 他们将不得不建立自己的所有权，因投资者在抵押品的权利。其次，是最终，在信托截止日期后的90天内，实际本票必须背书给受托人的专项信托的要求
资产有效地转移到信任，因此使sunject承兑票据信托财产。这要求发现支持逻辑和法律，事实上，纽约在这个问题上的古老和结算的法律。
。
B-3。纽约州法律管辖的强制性要求有效地传递
一个资产转移至一个信托这是没有争议的证券化信托，如被告，须到纽约的普通法。纽约的信托法是古代和解决。
纽约信托法领域有几个原则是，以任何特定的资产是否为给定信任的资产的分析尤为重要。
根据纽约法律，一项资产是否是信托财产的分析是根据礼品的法律决定。为了有一个有效的生前赠与，必须有一个交付的礼物（早在1935年，在伯戈因诉詹姆斯，282 NYS18，21（1935），纽约最高法院认为商业信托，也称为为“”马萨诸塞信托“，被认为是普通法的信托。也看到了重新房地产普洛特金的，290 NYS2d46，49（纽约州苏尔1968）（表征普通股信托基金为”“普通法的信任[S] “”），其他司法管辖区是否相符。见，例如，梅菲尔德诉查塔努加的第一“银行全国性，137 F.2d1013（第六巡回1943）（适用普通法的信任原则的抵押参与证书池持有人）。
在信托那里有一个受托人不是保人其他的情况下，转让将通过现有的规则管辖的意向和交付（的礼物的元素）“”在重新贝克尔，2004纽约州滑运。 51773U，4（N.Y. Sur.克拉，2004年）。礼物的主题进行实物交收）或推定或象征性交货（如以馈赠的工具）足够剥离统治和对房地产调控的捐助者和“什么是足以构成交货’必须定制，以满足案件‘的情况“。
传送规则规定，“'[中]要完善一个送礼物必须是完美的，因为该物业的性质和当事人的情况和周围环境会合理地允许‘。”“根据纽约州的法律有四个基本要素个人财产的有效信任：（1）指定受益人的; （2）指定的受托人，谁不能是受益人; （3）基金或其他财产足以指定或确定，以使与其所有权传递给受托人;和（4）的基金或其他财产，或它们的合法转让给受托人，以通过合法所有权其中以他作为受托人的意图实际交付。“有根据普通法，没有信任，直到有一个有关资产的有效交付信托。 （见，萨博的事情，10 NY2d94，98-99，同前; Speelman v帕斯卡尔，10 NY2d313，318-320，同上;狸狸诉，117 NY421，428-429，同上;物质科恩，187应用程序。息。392，95）为如果信任不能获得NY2d48，56（NY1986）引用格鲁恩诉格鲁恩，68。
（萨博事项，上文中，在第98页）。 （同上，文森特v里克斯，248 NY76，83;州Van Alstyne，上文的物质，第309;看到的，狸狸诉，同前，第428）引自格鲁恩诉格鲁恩，68 NY2d48 ，56-57（纽约州1986）。
布朗诉斯波尔，180 NY201，209-210（纽约州1904）。直到交付给受托人的财产授予人进行，或直至该等证券的财产授予人的声明，当他自己是受托人，出现在不考虑建立一个信托的受益人没有权利（参见里格尔v绝对确定中央汉诺威银行及信托有限公司，266应用程序分区586;。Gurlitz的物质[林德]，105杂项30，aff’d190应用程序分区907，同前;。马克思诉马克思，5杂项2D42）为引用萨斯曼诉萨斯曼，61 AD2D838（纽约州应用。息。2D打道1978）。和信托法（EPTL）第7-2.1（三）授权投资信托基金收购不动产或个人财产“的信任，这样的名称的名称被指定在文书说的信任。”
此外，双方的实际合同，其中包括保管协议，按揭贷款购买协议，以及信托文件被称为“共同使用及服务协议”规定的票据及按揭转让的一个非常具体的方法，以信托。
因为转移的方法载于信托仪器，它是不受任何差异或异常和信托法（EPTL）第7-2.1（三）授权投资信托基金收购不动产或个人财产“中的名称信任，这样的名称在指定的文书说的信任。“此外，双方的实际合同，其中包括保管协议，按揭贷款购买协议，并称为信托文书”共同使用及服务协议“，订明该票据及按揭转让给信托的一个非常具体的方法。
因为转移的方法载于信托仪器，它是不受任何差异或异常。
在对个人债务人作为受托人，根据违反受托义务理论的动作，信托文件规定，承兑票据及按揭转让予受托人，而根据纽约信任法律规定的有效传递。接下来的问题 – “什么构成有效的传递给受托人”属性，那么就没有信任过该属性可强制执行。
如果没有指定受益人的运送传达给信托的尝试将会失败。
在抵押贷款证券化的背景下，很显然，在受托人的名义的票据及按揭的信托登记是必要的有效转移的信任。
在纽约执政信托的法规，置业权力申诉被驳回正确的，他已经收购了没有标题的商品或独立的控制，因此在地，有超过财产违反任何实际的信任。 Kermani诉自由及物。插件。有限公司4 AD2D603（纽约州应用。息。3D打道1957）。 15富国银行诉农民，2008纽约杂项法律数据库3248。
法院既不会忽略交易文件的实际规定，也不创建合同的补救措施由订约各方理事合约被省略了。参见Schmidt诉磁头公司，468 NYS2d649，654（纽约州App.Div。1983）（“”这是根本，我们执行合同，不重写他们……由一方当事人承担的责任，目的是作为一个承诺……应该表示为这样的，而不是留给mplication“”（引文略））; Morlee销售公司诉商信托有限责任公司，172 NE2d280，282（NY1961）（“”[T]的cports不得通过施工增加或消费方面……，从而“使为当事人签订新合同的nterpret[振动性]的幌子下。‘“”（引号诉海勒教皇，250 NE881，882（纽约州1928））
当转移到受托人的要求，在公司或商业信托契约的上下文中查看，大约符合这些要求的详细信息变得很明显。
首先必须明白，“[t]他公司受托人已经很少有共同之处与普通受托人根据企业的契约受托人有他[她]定义的权利和义务，而不是由受托关系，而是由专门的条款该协议。
他[她]的状态更是受托人。“事实上，”[一] n的契约受托人是不同于普通的受托人。与后者相比，某些情况下也只限于契约受托人的职责，那些载于本契约。“责任由契约协议的条款规定。结算，受托人的职责和权力是由信托协议的条款和定义为受益人“。提货严格遵守与PSA/信托文件的规定。
此外，鉴于纽约地产大国和信托法第7-2.1（三）授权受托人取得信托作为该名称的name属性“被指定在一个利益相关者比的契约受托人之一，它一直说，类似于一个利益相关者的同时，“[一] T只通过锻炼忠诚的受托义务，这些案件和法规的明确导入的是，在企业契约条款交付资产，以受托人要求严格符合信托契约的强制转让条款。
股份公司资本融资合作伙伴，LP诉圣邦银行及信托有限公司2008年纽约州滑运。 5766，7（纽约州2008）绿色诉所有权担保信托有限公司22312位AD，纽约州227 252（第一部），aff’d，248 N.Y.627（1928）;哈扎德诉大通国民银行，159杂项。 57，287 N.Y.S. 541（增刊CT检查。1936），aff’d，公元257950，14 NYS2d147（第一部），aff’d，282 NY652，证书。否认，311美国708（1940）[19]见美克尔诉大陆资源，758 F.2d811，816（2D巡回法院1985）引自Ambac的INDEM。公司诉美国信孚银行，151杂项。 2D334,336（。纽约燮的Ct1991）.20看，美国信托有限公司v第一城全国性银行，57 AD2D285，295-296，aff’d45 NY2d869;信托法重述[二]§186，评论一，四）如被援引在In re日本兴业施罗德银行及信托有限公司271 AD2D322（纽约州应用。息。第一打道2000）。
传递文书的创作说信托财产，“应该有一点疑问，对于转移到受托人是有效的，该属性必须在受托人为特定的信托名义登记。信托财产不能作为原告辩称，不完全背书转让不表示该物业以信托形式持有由受托人指定受益人信托持有。事实上，这是明显的在纽约的法律，企图转移至信托无法同时指定受托人及受益人是无效的运送信托。 “未能命名为受益人的信托呈现的分配没有法律依据。这一立场是进一步支持逻辑在纽约普通法由以下命题：
（2）完善的礼物必需的交付必须是完美的，因为该物业的性质和当事人的情况和周围环境会合理地允许;必须有统治和所有权的变更;意向或单纯的文字不能提供控制和权柄的东西拟给予的实际投降的地方。
这是捐赠者的意图给予了完成交易的完成。单独的意图，无论多么完全建立，是无济于事的
富国银行，NA诉农民，2008纽约州滑运51133U，（参见里格尔诉中央汉诺威银行及信托有限公司，266应用程序分区586（纽约州燮的Ct2008）;。Gurlitz的物质[林德] ，105杂项30，aff’d190应用程序分区907，同上;。马克思诉马克思，5杂项2D42）引自萨斯曼诉萨斯曼，61 AD2D838（纽约州应用程序分区2D打道1978）。文森特诉普特南，248 NY76，82-84（纽约州1928）。
Without the consummated act of delivery, how could one logically argue that delivering a promissory note endorsed in blank (making it bearer paper) into a trustee’s vault is “delivery beyond the authority and control of the donor” when the vault is managed by the agent of the donor? If the donor were to claim that the promissory note “If the donor delivers the property to the third person simply for the purpose of his delivering it to the donee as the agent of the donor, the gift is not complete until the property has actually been delivered to the donee.
Such a delivery is not absolute, for the ordinary principle of agency applies, by which the donor can revoke the authority of the agent, and resume possession of the property, at any time before the authority is executed.”” were its property, not the trustee’s, there would be no evidentiary basis for the trustee to claim ownership.
Accordingly, New York law expressly requires that for property to be validly delivered to a trust, the property must pass completely out of the control of the donor (and its agents): Another case addressing this issue holds that “In order that delivery to a third person shall be effective, he must be the agent of the donee.
Delivery to an agent of the donor is ineffective, as the agency could be terminated before delivery to the intended donee.”Trustees for securitizations often occupy many roles simultaneously and conflictingly both as document custodians and trustees for myriad thousands of securitizations as well as for various parties who are active in the securitization process including originators, servicers, sponsors and depositors. Accordingly, it is inconceivable that anything other than registration into
Phillippsen v. Emigrant Indus.Sav. Bank, N.Y.S.2d 133, 137-138 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1948). (Beaver v. Beaver, supra, 117 N.Y. 421, 428, 22 N.E. 940, 941, 6 L.R.A. 403, Am.St.Rep. 531). See, also, Grant Trust & Savings Co. v. Tucker, 49 Ind. App. 345; Furenes v. Eide, 109 Ia. 511; Dickeschied v. Exchange Bank, W. Va. 340; Love v. Francis, Mich. 181; [**428] Merchant v. Building Co. [***15] , Ohio Circuit Ct. 190.) In re Nat’l Commer. Bank & Trust Co., 257 A.D. 868, 869-870 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 1939) citing Vincent v. Rix, supra v. Rix, supra; Bump v. Pratt, Hun, 201.
“the name of the trust as such name is designated in the instrument creating said trust property” could ever qualify as delivery to any particular securitization trust. Absent such registration, there would be nothing that would indicate which of thousands of trusts in the care of a trustee a particular promissory note might belong to or if it were the personal property of the This point was recently slammed home to the public consciousness in a watershed decision out of the State of Massachusetts. On January 7, 2011, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts—the highest court in that state—rendered a unanimous verdict in a case captioned U.S. Natl. Bank Assn., Trustee, v. Ibanez, For ABFC 20050PT 1 Trust, ABFC Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005-0PT 1, No. SJC-10694, (Mass. Jan. 7, 2011).
While that ruling may or may not be binding upon this case; it is very much contrary to the mortgage securitization industry’s position in cases involving the foreclosure of mortgage loans which have allegedly been securitized. The facts of the case in Massachusetts and the facts of this instant case are similar.
The case was a ruling on two consolidated cases – both cases were filed by banks (as trustees for two separate trusts) to quiet title on properties they had foreclosed and purchased at the foreclosure sale to satisfy the mortgagor’s debt.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that neither bank proved that its trust owned the mortgages when they foreclosed on the homes; therefore, neither had title to the foreclosed properties and that their foreclosures were void. Effectively, this put the borrowers back into the place they were before the foreclosure.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did not tell the homeowners they are allowed to shirk their obligation to pay their mortgages, which are still outstanding, valid obligations.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did, however, sharply instruct the banks that they must have the proper documentation which demonstrates a valid right to foreclose before a foreclosure can be carried out.
It is well worth noting the conclusion of the Massachusetts Ibanez opinion. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court noted that “The legal principles and requirements we set forth are well established in our case law and our statutes.
All that has changed is the [banks’] apparent failure to abide by those principles and requirements in the rush to sell mortgage-backed securities.” Just as the principles and requirements of Massachusetts law are well-founded, so too are those of New York law, and they should be upheld even if adherence to the law is inconvenient for banks rushing to sell mortgage-backed securities.
B-3 THE INTENT TO TRANSFER AN ASSET TO THE TRUST IS NOT A TRANSFER TO THE TRUST
The contents of these statutes, cases and contracts lead to one inescapable conclusion: the intent of the parties and the requirements of the contracts were that the assets be conveyed to the Trusts by the Trust closing dates.
For a transfer to any foreclosure industry has chosen to argue that it is clear that it was the parties’“intent” to transfer these assets and therefore “no court” would ever declare that these assets were not transferred to these trusts. The controlling law is overwhelmingly against the industry in this position. The failure to deliver the notes and mortgages to these trusts as required by the trust instruments is a default under the terms of every agreement that these parties executed, including their agreements for payment guarantees with the monoline bond insurers. The securitization industry chose to create its securitization trusts under New York law precisely because the law was ancient and settled.
Now that the actions of the foreclosure industry contradicts that law, parties such as the defendant trust are left to argue hope against precedent. The well-settled New York trust law provides that “A mere intention to make a gift which has not been carried into effect, confers no right upon the intended beneficiary.
There must be also delivery beyond the power of further control and dominion.” The foreclosure industry has chosen to argue that it is clear that it was the parties’“intent” to transfer these assets and therefore “no court” would ever declare that these assets were not transferred to these trusts.
The controlling law is overwhelmingly against the Movant`s in this position.
The failure to deliver the notes and mortgages to these trusts as required by the trust instruments is a default under the terms of every agreement that these parties executed, including their agreements for payment guarantees with the monoline bond insurers.
The securitization industry chose to create its securitization trusts under New York law precisely because the law was ancient and settled.
Now that the actions of the foreclosure industry contradicts that law, parties such as the Plaintiff trust are left to argue hope against precedent. The well-settled New York trust law provides that “A mere intention to make a gift which has not been carried into effect, confers no right upon the intended beneficiary. There must be also delivery beyond the power of further control and dominion.” Equity will not help out an incomplete delivery.
If the agent of the donor has failed to make the delivery expected equity will particular trust to be effective, there should have been a registration of the assets into “the name of the trust as such name is designated in the instrument creating said trust property”—this is the only method by which these assets could have been “divested from the possession and title” of the donors. In response to the lucidity of the controlling law on this issue, the mortgage (Vincent v. Rix, 248 N.Y. 76, 85 v. Rix, 248 N.Y. 76, 85; Matter of Green, 247 App. Div. 540; McCarthy v. Pieret, 281 N.Y. 407, 409.) as cited by In re FIRST TRUST & DEPOSIT CO., 264 A.D. 940, 941 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t 1942) not declare him a trustee for the donee. “Thus, Thornton on Gifts and Advancements (§140) notes: “In determining whether there has been a valid delivery, the situation of the subject of the gift must be considered.
If it is actually present, and capable of delivery without serious effort, it is not too much to say that there must be an actual delivery, although the donor need not in person or by agent hand the article to the donee, if the latter assumes the possession.” There was absolutely nothing in the physical nature of the papers to be delivered in this case, or in the physical condition or the surroundings of the donor, that made a symbolical delivery necessary of the thing given has been very largely relaxed, but a symbolical delivery is sufficient delivery as nearly perfect and complete as the circumstances will allow.
Some cases have confined the duties of the indenture trustee to those set forth in the indenture. From this context springs the seminal rule of law that effectively causes the parties to the Trust agreement and the Trust to be “gored by their own bull”.
New It is true that the old rule requiring an actual delivery only when the conditions are so adverse to actual delivery as to make a symbolical Further, the failure to convey to a trust per the controlling trust document is not a matter that may be cured by the breaching party. New York law is unflinchingly clear that a trustee has only the authority granted by the instrument under which he holds, either deed or will.
This fundamental rule has existed from the beginning and is still law. An indenture trustee is unlike the ordinary trustee. In contrast with the latter, Vincent v. Putnam, 248 N.Y. 76, 82-84 (N.Y. 1928) In re Van Alstyne, 207 N.Y. 298, 309-310 (N.Y. 1913).31 In re Van Alstyne, 207 N.Y. 298, 309-310 (N.Y. 1913). Allison & Ver Valen Co. v. McNee, 170 Misc. 144, 146 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1939). Ambac Indem. Corp. v. Bankers Trust Co., 151 Misc. 2d 334, 336 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1991).
Therefore, the trustees for these trusts may only acquire assets in the manner set forth in the trust Instrument and may not acquire assets in violation of the trust instrument.
To the extent that any assets were not conveyed to these trusts as required and when required by the trust instrument, they are not assets of the trusts and the trustee cannot correct this deficiency now since the funding period provided in the Trust instruments passed many years ago.
The attempts to acquire assets by these trusts which violate the terms of the Trust instrument are void.
Therefore, late assignments, improper chains of title, late endorsements, improper chains of title in the endorsements and the attempt to transfer to the trusts by foreclosure deed are just a number of the many examples of actions which are void if taken by a party to the indenture who is attempting to transfer property to the Trustee for the Trust in violation of the trust instrument.
C. THE TRUST NEVER PROPERLY ACQUIRED THE MORTGAGE NOTE AND THE TRUST CANNOT CURE ITS FATAL STANDING DEFECT
Therefore, the trustees for these trusts may only acquire assets in the manner set forth in the trust instrument and may not acquire assets in violation of the trust instrument.
To the extent that any assets were not conveyed to these trusts as required and when required by the trust instrument, they are not assets of the trusts and the trustee cannot correct this deficiency now since the funding period provided in the Trust instruments passed many years ago.
The attempt to acquire assets by these trusts which violate the terms of the Trust instrument are void. Therefore, late assignments, improper chains of title, late endorsements, improper chains of title in the endorsements and the attempt to transfer to the trusts by foreclosure deed are just a number of the many examples of actions which are void if taken by a party to the indenture who is attempting to transfer property to the Trustee for the Trust in violation of the trust instrument.
C. THE TRUST NEVER PROPERLY ACQUIRED THE MORTGAGE NOTE AND THE TRUST CANNOT CURE ITS FATAL STANDING DEFECT
York’s law is so well-settled regarding the limitations of a trustee’s power to act that New York’s Estates Powers and Trust Law Section 7-2.4 states: § 7-2.4 Act of trustee in contravention of trust If the trust is expressed in the instrument creating the estate of the trustee, every sale, conveyance or other act of the trustee in contravention of the trust, except as authorized by this article and by any other provision of law, is void.
Under New York law there is no trust over property that has not been properly transferred to a trust. The Defendant Trust stated to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in filings under oath that it has assets in excess of $400 million.
To acquire assets, the Trust must be funded in accordance with the requirements of the PSA/Trust documents. The pertinent terms of the agreement are found at §2.01 (Conveyance of Trust Fund) of the PSA. This section details how the mortgage notes in the instant case were transferred from Bank of America NA. (as Originator) to ” U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” .
The Subject note is in Blank and is not made out to the name of the Movant. U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” Bank of America NA, is the alleged mortgage holder as indicated on the note. “Pay to the order of U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” does not have the authority to get the lift of STAY, there is no “showing” of an unbroken chain of endorsements in the documents provided to the Debtor. “According to the requirements set forth in the Trust Agreement.
A series of endorsements of the promissory note reflective of each party who had an interest in the promissory note culminating with a blank endorsement from the depositor at the very minimum.”
The Trust never possessed the mortgage note per the terms of the PSA (Pooling and Service Agreement). Further, in the PSA’s exhibits, Exhibit One sets forth the contents of the collateral file for each mortgage loan that is trust property and further includes a final specific endorsement to the Trustee for the specific trust in this case to effect a final transfer to the Trust and to make the subject note trust property. Any attempt by ” U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” Bank of America NA, to transfer the promissory note to the Trust at this late date would fail for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that the closing date of August 30, 2007 passed nearly 6 years ago.
By the terms of the Trust and the applicable provision of the Internal Revenue Code incorporated into and a part of the Trust agreement, the promissory note cannot be transferred to the Trust. The Trust has never owned the subject promissory note and the Trust can never own the subject promissory note.
Trust has not provided documentation to show that it was or is entitled to the money secured by the mortgage of subject property. “U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” has offered no verifiable proof of ownership.
End ……
whole trust at link
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/934377/000137940207000041/form424b5.txt
Prospectus at link
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/934377/000137940207000043/ex4_1.txt
Pooling and Servicing agreement at link
******************************************
fùguó yínháng, tōng yínháng,
zuòwéi zhǔ fúwù shāng hé zhèngquàn guǎnlǐ yuán,
hé
měiguó yínháng quánguó xiéhuì
zuòwéi shòutuō rén
gòngtóng shǐyòng jí fúwù xiéyì
rìqí wèi 2007 nián 8 yuè 30 rì
ànjiē zhítōng zhèngshū
xìliè 2007-7
shàng Mtge qìjù hào: 668409245
Xìntuō de míngchēng: Měiguó 2007-7 zījīn xìntuō yín zhèngquàn
jù chēng yuán dàikuǎn rén de xìngmíng; měiguó yínháng bùshìyòng.
Jiézhǐ rìqí: 2007 Nián 8 yuè sānshí rì huò yuē
jiézhǐ rìqí: 2007 Nián 8 yuè 1 rì
bàogào shǒuxiān yīgè
zhāilù zhǔtǐ de dàikuǎn róngzī hé fúwù xiéyì de dì èr tiáo. Gāi liànjiē hái tígōng yǐ gōng cānkǎo. Zài lìyì fāng, qíshí shì “zhīfù gěi měiguó yínháng quánguó xiéhuì de shùnxù, rú shòutuō rénwéi měiguó róngzī gōngsī ànjiē zhítōng zhèngshū, xìliè 2007-7, wú zhuī suǒ quán de yín zhèngquàn de chí yǒu rén, ” hé jì hé dǐyā bìxū zài gāi míngchēng yǔ bèishū shì zhèngquè de. Zài zhè zhǒng qíngkuàng xià, zhídé zhùyì de shì zài kòngbái hé měiguó yínháng de míngchēng
shì yīnfú kě zhuǎnràng piàojù huò bùkě zhuǎnràng piàojù?
Dì èr tiáo
CONVEYANCE ànjiē dàikuǎn;
zhèngshū de yuán qiānfā
http://Www.Sec.Gov/Archives/edgar/data/934377/000137940207000043/ex4_1.Txt
dì 2.01 Shūsòng ànjiē dàikuǎn.
(Yī) cúnkuǎn rén, tóngshí yǔ qiān lì jí jiāofù běn xiéyì, tècǐ chūshòu, zhuǎnràng, fēnpèi, shèzhì jiéshù, fǒuzé chuándá gěi shòutuō rén dàibiǎo běn xìntuō wèi Certificateholders de lìyì, wú zhuī suǒ quán, suǒyǒu quánlì, suǒyǒuquán jí bìng yú-49 cúnkuǎn rén de lìyì –
yīgè <page>
ànjiē dàikuǎn jí xiāngguān dǐyā wénjiàn, bāokuò suǒyǒu de lìxí hé běn jīn shōu dào huò jiù ànjiē dàikuǎn yǔ cúnkuǎn de quánlì (bù zhīfù běn jīn jí lìxí, bìng zài dǐyā dàikuǎn shàng huò zài jiézhǐ rìqí zhīqián zhīfù qítā) xià BANA fúwù xiéyì jí gēnjù ànjiē dàikuǎn gòumǎi xiéyì, bāokuò cúnkuǎn, zuòwéi jiù underthe fúwù xiéyì (bù bāokuò BANA fúwù xiéyì chúwài) jí xiāngguān xiāoshòu xiéyì bǎojiàn rén de quánlì bǎojiàn rén shòu ràng rén de quánlì.
(B) zài gāi děng zhuǎnràng jí chūràng fāngmiàn, jìcún rén jiāofù huò cùshǐ jiāofù gěi shòutuō rén, huò dàibiǎo shòutuō rén de tuōguǎn rén, wèi Certificateholders, xiàliè wénjiàn huò wénshū jiù měi zōng ànjiē de hǎochù dàikuǎn rúcǐ fēnpèi:
(I) yuán ànjiē zhùyì, zài xiàmiàn de biǎogé zàntóng shǒudòng huò chuánzhēn qiānshǔ: “Zhīfù gěi měiguó yínháng quánguó xiéhuì de shùnxù, rú shòutuō rénwéi měiguó róngzī gōngsī ànjiē zhítōng zhèngshū, xìliè 2007-7 yín zhèngquàn de chí yǒu rén, wú zhuī suǒ quán “, yǔ suǒyǒu bìyào de gānyù dàiyán dàiyán xiǎnshì cóng fāduān yīgè wánzhěng de liàntiáo, yǐ shòutuō rén (měi yīgè zhèyàng de dàiyán zúyǐ zhuǎnràng fāng de suǒyǒu quánlì, suǒyǒuquán hé lìyì de rènkě, zuòwéi piàojù chí yǒu rén huò shòu ràng rénwù, bìng gāi ànjiē zhù), qiě zài rènhé ànjiē dàikuǎn de qíngkuàng xià, qǐyuán yú niǔyuē de yīgè NYCEMA de NYCEMA, xīn de dǐyā dàikuǎn piàojù (rú shìyòng), zònghé dǐyā dàikuǎn piàojù jí zònghé ànjiē jìlù de guójiā;
zhèngquàn huà xìntuō
mòrèn de tōngzhī biǎomíng, yuánlái de zhàiquánrén shì měiguó yínháng, NA shàng Movant de míngchēng shì zài pǔtōng fǎ xìntuō de míngchēng. Xìntuō shì tōngguò yīgè gòngtóng shǐyòng jí fúwù xiéyì ( “PSA” ) chuàngzàole yīgè niǔyuē pǔtōng fǎ de xìnrèn. Gēnjù PSA, dàikuǎn jù chēng huìjí chéng yīgè xìnrèn bìng zhuǎnhuàn chéng dǐyā dàikuǎn zhīchí zhèngquàn. Zài PSA tígōngle yīgè jiézhǐ rìqí 2007 nián 8 yuè 30 rì, běn xìntuō. Yóuyú zài liè rúxià, zhè shì bèi yāoqiú zài qí suǒyǒu zīchǎn cún rù xìntuō de rìqí. PSA de guīdìng, niǔyuē zhōu fǎlǜ guǎnxiá shōugòu ànjiē zīchǎn xìntuō.
Xìntuō shì zuòwéiyīgè REMIC xìnrèn. Gēnjù guónèi shuìshōu fǎdiǎn ( “IRC” ) de REMIC guīdìng xìntuō de jiézhǐ rìqí yěshì qǐdòng rì de xìntuō. Jiézhǐ rìqí/qǐdòng yītiān shì xiǎnzhù de, yīn wéi xìntuō jījīn de suǒyǒu zīchǎn dōu bèi zhuǎnyí dào xìntuō huò zhīqián jiézhǐ rìqí, yǐ quèbǎo xìntuō shōu dàole REMIC zhuàngtài.
Zài IRC tígōng de xiāngguān bùfèn zhǐchū:“Chú dì 860G (sì) tígōng (2 ), ‘rúguǒ rènhé shù’é de qǐdòng yītiānhòu cùchéngle REMIC, zī zhēngshōu shuì xiàng REMIC zhōng de nàshuì niándù tā de gòngxiàn bèi jiēshōu děngyú 100%de zhè zhǒng gòngxiàn liàng. “26 USC§ 860G (D) (1 ).
Xìnrèn de jìnxíng jiāoyì de nénglì bèi xiànzhì zài shòuquán qí xìntuō wénjiàn de cāozuò.
Fáng zhǔ chēng, zài zhèlǐ, xìntuō wénjiàn zhǐ yǔnxǔ yīgè tèdìng zhuǎnyí dào xìntuō de fāngfǎ, zài yú PSA de§ 2.01. 6 2.01 Jié guīdìng de cúnkuǎn rén tígōng shòutuō rén yǔ yuán ànjiē piàojù, kòngbái bèishū huòzhě bèishū rúxià: Měiguó yínháng quánguó xiéhuì, zuòwéi shòutuō rén de yín zhèngquàn chí yǒu rén měiguó róngzī gōngsī ànjiē zhítōng zhèngshū,2007 xìliè – 7, wú zhuī suǒ quán “, gēnjù shìyòng de xiéyì, wú zhuī suǒ quán. ” Suǒyǒu de shìxiān gānyù dàiyán bìxū chūshì dàiyán de yīgè wánzhěng de liàntiáo cóng fāduān dào shòutuō rén.
Gēnjù niǔyuē dìchǎn dàguó hé xìntuō fǎ§ 7-2.1 (Sān), shǔxìng bìxū zài shòutuō rén de míngyì dēngjì, yǐbiàn zhuǎnyí dào shòutuō rén de tèdìng xìnrèn shì yǒuxiào de.
1 Guónèi shuìshōu fǎdiǎn guīdìng, shùyǔ “fángdìchǎn dǐyā dàikuǎn tóuzī guǎndào” hé “REMIC” shì zhǐ rènhé shítǐ (1) dào bèi shì wéi yīgè REMIC xuǎnjǔ shìyòng yú gāi kè shuì niándù jí zhīqián suǒyǒu nàshuì niándù, (2 ) suǒyǒu, qízhōng yǒu pǔtōng quányì huò shèngyú quányì de lìyì, (3 ), yǐ yú 1 (zhǐyǒu 1) bān de shèngyú quányì (yǐjí suǒyǒu fèn pài (rú yǒu), duìyú zhèyàng de lìyì shì àn bǐlì), (4 ) zuòwéi qǐdòng rì jí yǐhòu zài rènhé shíhòu dōu jiējìn dì 3 gè yuè, zì cǐhòu, qízhōng jué dà bùfèn yóu hégé de dǐyā dàikuǎn hé huòzhǔn tóuzī de zīchǎn. Xìntuō cáichǎn bùnéng jǔxíng yǔ bù wánzhěng de dàiyán hé fēnpèi bù xiǎnshì gāi wùyè yǐ xìntuō xíngshì chí yǒu yóu shòutuō rén zhǐdìng shòuyì rén de xìnrèn.
Fáng zhǔ chēng, zhè yī quēxiàn yìwèizhe, měiguó yínháng quánguó xiéhuì, zuòwéi shòutuō rén de yín zhèngquàn chí yǒu rén měiguó róngzī gōngsī ànjiē zhítōng zhèngshū, xìliè 2007-7, wú zhuī suǒ quán “ , ér měiguó yínháng shì wúxiào de piàojù chí yǒu rén.
Yī, zì biànliàng
A. Yuángào xìntuō yǐ méiyǒu zīgé lái qǔxiāo dǐyā pǐn shú huí quán yīn wéi yīzhí méiyǒu yǒuxiào de kě zhíxíng de fēnpèi jǐ xìntuō de shòutuō rén
A- 1.
Yuángào xìntuō de guǎn zhì yóu yīgè niǔyuē pǔtōng fǎ xìntuō
niǔyuē fǎlǜ jīyú qí xìntuō xiéyì. Měiguó yínháng quánguó xiéhuì, zuòwéi shòutuō rénwéi měiguó róngzī gōngsī ànjiē zhítōng zhèngshū, xìliè 2007-7, wú zhuī suǒ quán de yín zhèngquàn de chí yǒu rén, “zhè zhǒng xìnrèn shì bùshì zhège dàikuǎn hé míngchēng de bízǔ shì bùshì jiù shuōmíng, zhè zhǒng xìnrèn shì shènzhì méiyǒu yījiā yínháng, yínháng shì qí shòutuō rén, ér gāi shítǐ shì bùshì fángdài, fúwù shāng, shènzhì shì yínháng de bízǔ.
Xiāngfǎn, zhège shítǐ shì yóu bèi chēng wéi yī xiàng xiéyì, jiànlìle niǔyuē pǔtōng fǎ xìnrèn “chí jí fúwù xiéyì”. Jù chēng, zhàiwùrén dān qū zhùfáng dàikuǎn, yǐjí qítā dàikuǎn, huìjí chéng yīgè xìnrèn bìng zhuǎnhuàn chéng dǐyā dàikuǎn zhīchí zhèngquàn ( “MBS” ), kěyǐ gòumǎi hé chūshòu tóuzī – bèi chēng wèi zhèngquàn huà de guòchéng. Běn xìntuō suǒ chí yǒu de měi yīgè dǐyā dàikuǎn de jīběn chéngduì piàojù zuòwéi wèi tóuzī zhě dài lái qiánzài de shōurù láiyuán.
Xìntuō shèxián chí yǒu yuángào de piàojù yú huò yuē 2007 nián 8 yuè 1 rì chuàngjiàn de, bìngqiě bèi biāozhì wèi “měiguó yínháng quánguó xiéhuì, zuòwéi shòutuō rén de yín zhèngquàn chí yǒu rén měiguó róngzī gōngsī ànjiē zhítōng zhèngshū, xìliè 2007-7, wú zhuī suǒ quán “,” zhōng.
Xìntuō, qí tiáokuǎn, shèzhì de xìntuō jījīn de tiáokuǎn bāohán zài huìjí hé fúwù xiéyì yīgè “jiézhǐ rìqí”2007 niándù 8 yuè 30 rì ( “PSA” huò “xìntuō xiéyì” ), zhè shì yīgè dàyuē 400 yè chuàngjiàn xìnrènhé dìngyì de quánlì, yìwù hé dāngshìrén de zérèn xìntuō xiéyì wénjiàn.
PSA shì tíjiāo xià shìyán yǔ měiguó zhèngquàn jiāoyì wěiyuánhuì, bìng liánjiē dào zuòwéi yīgè túbiǎo 1.
Zài PSA hái cǎiyòng cānzhào yīgè míng wèi dǐyā dàikuǎn gòumǎi xiéyì ( “fángzhǐ xǐqián fǎ” ), dāndú de wéndàng. Zhèxiē bùtóng de wénjiàn, yīncǐ, shōugòu xìntuō, tōngguò qí xìntuō rén bèi qǐsù, shì yījiā zhìlì yú chōngdāng “qúdào’xìntuō (dìngyì jiàn xiàwén) gēnjù měiguó guónèi shōurù fǎdiǎn ( ” IRC “ ) niǔyuē qǐyè xìnrèn. Gēnjù fǎguī suǒ cǎiyòng, bìng nàrù xìntuō de “jiézhǐ rìqí” de xìntuō jījīn (2007 nián 8 yuè 30 rì) de tiáokuǎn, xìntuō jí shìyòng guóshuì jú ( “IRS” ) de tiáokuǎn yěshì “qǐdòng rì” gēnjù IRC de REMIC guīdìng de xìntuō jījīn.
Qǐdòng rì shì xiǎnzhù, yīnwèi zài IRC bǎng zài qí shàng REMIC xìnrènkě jiēshōu qí zīchǎn, yǐ zhège rìqí de xiànzhì. Zài IRC de xún zhǐ REMIC de dìngyì de xiāngguān bùfèn: Xìntuō de dǐyā dàikuǎn zīchǎn, zài niǔyuē gēnjù PSA de dì 11.03 Guó de fǎlǜ guǎnxiá.
(Yī) yībān guīzé. Wèile zhège chēnghào, shùyǔ “fángdìchǎn dǐyā
tóuzī dǎoguǎn hé’ REMIC “shì zhǐ rènhé shítǐ (1) dào bèi shì wéi yīgè REMIC xuǎnjǔ shìyòng yú gāi kè shuì niándù jí zhīqián suǒyǒu nàshuì niándù, (2) suǒyǒu zài qízhōng de pǔtōng quányì huò shèngyú quányì de lìyì, (3 ), qízhōng yǒu 1 (zhǐyǒu 1) bān de shèngyú quányì (yǐjí suǒyǒu fèn pài (rú yǒu), duìyú zhèyàng de lìyì shì àn bǐlì), (4 ) zuòwéi jiéshù 3 gè yuè de qǐdòng rì zhīhòu, bìng zài kāishǐ suǒyǒu shíjiān, qízhōng jué dà bùfèn de zīchǎn bāokuò hégé
dǐyā dàikuǎn hé xǔkě investments.26 U.S.C.S. § 860D (qiángdiào).
Jù qīngcháng de zérènhé shòutuō rén de quánlì yóu xìntuō xiéyì de tiáokuǎn dìngyì, bìngqiě zhǐ néng yóu zhōngchéng shòuyì rén de xìntuō yìwù huí huǒ (jiàn, měiguó xìntuō yǒuxiàn gōngsī v dì yī chéng quánguó xìng yínháng, 57 AD2D 285, 295-296, aff’d 45 NY2d 869; xìntuō fǎ chóng shù [èr]§ 186, pínglùn A,D). Kàn zài chóngxīn rìběn xìngyè shī luō dé yínháng jí xìntuō yǒuxiàn gōngsī 271 AD2D 322 (niǔyuē zhōu yìngyòng. Xī. Dì yī dá dào 2000).
26 Měiguó fǎdiǎn 860G (D) (2) tiáo guīdìng:
(A) rènhé gòngxiàn, yǐ fāngbiàn qīnglǐ de hūjiào (rú guīzhāng dìngyì) huò hégé de qīngsuàn.
(B) rènhé fùkuǎn dānbǎo dì xìngzhì.
(C) rènhé qíjiān kāishǐ qǐdòng rì de 3 gè yuè qíjiān de gòngxiàn.
(D) rènhé yóu yīgè shèngyú de rènhé chí yǒu rén yǒu zīgé de chúbèi jījīn gōng kuǎn
xìngqù zài REMIC.
(Wǔ) zài fǎguī xǔkě de qítā gòngxiàn.
Zài PSA (zhǔyào zài dì 9.12) Tōngguò yāoqiú gè fāng xìnrèn, yǐ bìmiǎn kěnéng wéijí rènhé REMIC de shuìwù zhuàngkuàng jí/huò běn xìntuō zhēngshōu rènhé shuì, jìnzhǐ juānkuǎn huò shòu jìn jiāoyì de rènhé xíngdòng jiějuéle IRC de zhèxiē bùfèn.
Zhèxiē PSA de guīdìng shì yīnwèi niǔyuē xìntuō fǎ, zài IRC de REMIC de guīdìng, hé PSA chénglì wèi fǎ tuán de IRC REMIC guīdìng zhī jiān de xiānghù zuòyòng zhòngyào de shì zài zhè zhǒng qíngkuàng xià, shìshí de fēnxī.
A- 2.
Xìntuō wénshū/ PSA fú sī shèzhì yīgè tèdìng de shíjiān, fāngfǎ hé fāngshì REMIC qǐdòng yītiān zhīhòu, zī qiángjiā zài qízhōng de gòngxiàn shōu dào děngyú 100%de zhè zhǒng gòngxiàn liàng de shuì xiàng REMIC de nàshuì niándù “26 USC 860G (D) (2) tiáo guīdìng:
(2 ) Lìwài. Dì (1) kuǎn bìng bùshìyòng yú tā shì yóu xiànjīn hé rènhé xiàliè gè kuǎn zhōng miáoshù de rènhé gòngxiàn:
(A) rènhé gòngxiàn, yǐ fāngbiàn qīnglǐ de hūjiào (rú guīzhāng dìngyì) huò hégé de qīngsuàn.
(B) rènhé fùkuǎn dānbǎo dì xìngzhì. Qíjiān kāishǐ qǐdòng rì de 3 gè yuè nèi (C) rènhé gòngxiàn.
(Sì) tōngguò zài REMIC de shèngyú quányì de chí yǒu rén yǒu zīgé de chúbèi jījīn de rènhé gòngxiàn.
(Wǔ) zài fǎguī xǔkě de qítā gòngxiàn. Zài PSA (zhǔyào zài dì 9.12) Tōngguò yāoqiú gè fāng xìnrèn, yǐ bìmiǎn kěnéng wéijí rènhé REMIC de shuìwù zhuàngkuàng jí/huò běn xìntuō zhēngshōu rènhé shuì, jìnzhǐ juānkuǎn huò shòu jìn jiāoyì de rènhé xíngdòng jiějuéle IRC de zhèxiē bùfèn.
Zhèxiē PSA de guīdìng shì yīnwèi niǔyuē xìntuō fǎ, zài IRC de REMIC de guīdìng, hé PSA chénglì wèi fǎ tuán de IRC REMIC guīdìng zhī jiān de xiānghù zuòyòng zhòngyào de shì zài zhè zhǒng qíngkuàng xià de shìshí, fǎyuàn de fēnxī.
Xìntuō wénshū/ PSA tíchūle yīgè jùtǐ de shíjiān, fāngfǎ de IRC hé fāngshì hái tígōngle jìnzhǐ jiāoyì de dìngyì hé jìnzhǐ de gòngxiàn zhè shì yǒuguān zhè zhǒng qíngkuàng xià yěshì rúcǐ. Zài zhè zhǒng qíngkuàng xià de bèijǐng xià, xiāngguān fǎguī shì jìnzhǐ de gòngxiàn shì rúxià de dìngyì:
26 Měiguó fǎdiǎn 860G (D) (1 ) guīdìng:
Chúle dì 860G (sì) tígōng (2 ), “rúguǒ rènhé jīn’é cùchéngle zījīn de xìntuō.
Xìntuō xúnqiú qǔxiāo dǐyā pǐn shú huí quán de zhàiwùrén yǐ zài qí xìntuō xiéyì (PSA) xìntuō yǔ zīchǎn zījīn de jùtǐ shíjiān, fāngfǎ hé fāngshì de tiáokuǎn.
Zuì guānjiàn de shíjiān shì xìntuō de jiézhǐ rìqí 2007 nián 8 yuè 30 rì, gēnjù PSA de tiáokuǎn, suǒyǒu de xìntuō zīchǎn bìng zhuǎn rù xìntuō huò zhīqián jiézhǐ rìqí.
Zhè xiàng guīdìng shì wèi quèbǎo xìntuō jiāng shōuqǔ REMIC zhuàngtài, yīncǐ miǎn jiǎo liánbāng suǒdéshuì. 2.02 Jié PSA de (a) xiàng guīdìng de 90 tiān de chuāngkǒu xìntuō jiézhǐ rìqí zài běn xìntuō kě wánchéng rènhé dān zhèng quēshī huò wánchéng yào wánchéng zīchǎn yóu cúnkuǎn rén zhuàn yí dào rènhé wénjiàn hòu,
xìntuō.
B. Xìntuō xiéyì tígōngle wéi yī de fāngshì, zhè zīchǎn huì bèi zhèngquè dì chuánsòng de xìnrènhé rènhé xíngwéi wéifǎnle xìntuō xiéyì shǔ wúxiào
yīncǐ, chéngwéi xìntuō zīchǎn de zīchǎn bìxū yǐ zhuǎnyí zhì xìntuō zài yú PSA de shíjiān nèi. Zài shíjiān zhóu yāoqiú éwài de 90 tiān cóng IRC de REMIC guīdìng zhùcè chénglì, yǐ tígōng yīgè “qīnglǐ qíxiàn” de REMIC wánchéng qǐdòng rì (zhè yěshì yǐhòu yǔ zīchǎn de REMIC zhuǎnràng xiāngguān de wénjiàn xìntuō jiézhǐ rìqí). Yīncǐ, gēnjù zài cǐ qíngkuàng xià, xìntuō xiéyì de píngyuán shàng, zài jiézhǐ rìqí/qǐdòng rìqí wèi 2007 nián 8 yuè 30 rì hé zhuǎnyí zīchǎn zhùrù xìntuō de zuìhòu yī tiān shì 2007 nián 8 yuè 30 rì.
B-1.
Zīchǎn zhuǎnràng xìntuō gēnjù xìntuō yíqì/ PSA zuòwéi yīgè tōngyòng de shì, yěyǒu tōngguò gāi xìntuō de xiāngguān zīchǎn, tèbié shì gèrén de chéngduì piàojù, kěnéng huì bèi zhuǎnyí huò yùnshū de jǐ zhǒng fāngfǎ. Xìnrèn de jìnxíng jiāoyì de nénglì bèi xiànzhì zài shòuquán qí xìntuō wénjiàn de cāozuò. Zài zhè zhǒng qíngkuàng xià, xìntuō wénjiàn zhǐ yǔnxǔ yīgè tèdìng zhuǎnyí dào xìntuō de fāngfǎ. Gāi fāngfǎ zài yú PSA de 2.01 Jié: Liànjiē dào PSA
http://Www.Sec.Gov/Archives/edgar/data/934377/000137940207000043/ex4_1.Txt
zhège rìqí shì zài zài biǎoxiàn chū 1 397 25 yè zhōng dìngyì de xìntuō wénshū zhè yī yāoqiú pī fà xiàn zài 2.01 Jié;
“gēnjù ànjiē dàikuǎn gòumǎi xiéyì, chūshòu gè màifāng, zhuǎnràng, fēnpèi, shèzhì jiéshù, fǒuzé zhuǎndá gěi cúnkuǎn rén, wú zhuī suǒ quán, suǒyǒu quánlì, suǒyǒuquán jí gāi děng màifāng bìng tōngguò qí xìntuō chūshòu di zīchǎn zhōng de quányì jījīn…. Zài zhèyàng de xiāoshòu fāngmiàn, jìcún rén jiāofù gěi, bìng cúnfàng, shòutuō rén huò bǎoguǎn rén, zuòwéi qí dàilǐ rén, yǐxià wénjiàn huò wénshū jiù měi zōng ànjiē dàikuǎn rúcǐ fēnpèi: (I) yuán ànjiē zhùyì shìxiàng, bāokuò rènhé chē yǒu tóupiào zhě, bù bèishū kòngbái zhuī suǒ quán (A) huò měiguó yínháng quánguó xiéhuì de shùnxù, zuòwéi shòutuō rén de yín zhèngquàn chí yǒu rén měiguó róngzī gōngsī ànjiē zhítōng zhèngshū, xìliè 2007-7, wú zhuī suǒ quán “de”
(běn cì zhuǎnràng yǔyán de fēnxī xūyào yīgè kǎolǜ shàngshù duànluò de měi yībùfèn, zài zhè yīduàn de xìntuō xiéyì zhōng de yǔyán, dì yī tiáo yǔjù shì chuánshū zhī yī, zhǐchū “cúnkuǎn rén yǐ jiāofù bìng cúnfàng yú shòutuō rén huò tuōguǎn rén yǐxià
wénjiàn “ . Guānjiàn wénjiàn shì yuánshǐ dǐyā zhùyì, zhè xūyào zài zhège yǔyán zhōng qiángzhì dàiyán: “Yuánlái de dǐyā dàikuǎn piàojù bèishū…. Wú zhuī suǒ quán” hòu jiē de cuòcí zhōng de rèn yī/huò géshì de liǎng gè bèi xuǎn fāng’àn. Dì yīgè biāo yǒu “A” de guójiā měiguó de “kòngbái huò zhìxù” yínháng quánguó xiéhuì, zuòwéi shòutuō rén de yín zhèngquàn chí yǒu rén měiguó róngzī gōngsī ànjiē zhítōng zhèngshū, xìliè 2007-7, wú zhuī suǒ quán de, “
duīdié hòu de dàiyán liàn bù zhòng duàn de zhè yī yāoqiú shì dǐngjí de dǐyā wénjiàn de zuìzhōng nèiróng rènzhèng de xìntuō lìyì de yāoqiú.
Zhè yī yāoqiú shì zài biǎo 1 de fángzhǐ xǐqián fǎ (ànjiēdàikuǎn gòumǎi xiéyì), zhè shì yīgè fùjiàn, bìng jiéhé rú dì 2.01 PSA de yīgè zǔchéng bùfèn zhǎodào.
Duìyú měi yīgè dǐyā dàikuǎn, dǐyā dàikuǎn wénjiàn yīng bāokuò yǐxià gè xiàngmù, xū gōng mǎifāng cháyuè huò qí zhǐdìng, bìng xū sòng jiāo gēnjù běn xiéyì de tiáokuǎn xiàng mǎifāng huò qí zhǐdìng. (Yī) yuán ànjiē zhùyì shìxiàng, bāokuò rènhé chēshǒu tóupiào zhě, tōngguò wú zhuī suǒ quán de “ ” zhīfù gěi měiguó yínháng quánguó xiéhuì de shùnxù, zuòwéi shòutuō rén de yín zhèngquàn chí yǒu rén měiguó róngzī gōngsī ànjiē zhítōng zhèngshū,2007 xìliè de shùnxù-7, wú zhuī suǒ quán, “ , ”, bìng xiǎnshì kěyòng de xiāngguān ànjiē dàikuǎn màifāng dàiyán cóng yuánlái de shōu kuǎn rén jí qí duì rén yě zàntóng shòutuō rén liàn bù zhòng duàn de chéngdù;
shàngshù guīdìng qīngchǔ biǎomíng, tóngshí gè fāng duì zhèngquàn zuòchū guīdìng, jí chéngduì piàojù duìběn xìntuō kěnéng huì zài kòngbái jiāofù gěi shòutuō rén; yǒu liǎng gè yāoqiú, nà shì qiángzhì xìng de. Shǒuxiān, yāoqiú chūshòu gěi xìntuō suǒyǒu yīnfú
yǒu dàiyán de yīgè wánzhěng de liàntiáo cóng yuánlái de shōu kuǎn rén tā rèn kě shòutuō rén de rén.
Cóng zhèngquàn huà, tèdìng de qǐyè guānzhù zhè yī yāoqiú yuán yú jí zhèngjù yǒu, shíjì shang shì yīgè “zhēnshí chūshòu” de zhèngquàn huà zīchǎn, tāmen shì zài méiyǒu bànfǎ de bízǔ, bǎojiàn rén huò cúnkuǎn rén réngrán cáichǎn, yīn’ér bù shòu wèi fāduān, zànzhù, huò cúnkuǎn rén de zhàiquánrén de zhàiquán. Qícì, shì zuìzhōng, zài xìntuō jiézhǐ rìqí hòu de 90 tiānnèi, shíjì běn piào bìxū bèishū gěi shòutuō rén de zhuānxiàng xìntuō de zīchǎn yǒuxiào dì zhuàn yí dào xìnrèn, yīncǐ shǐ zhǔtǐ chéngduì piàojù xìntuō cáichǎn de yāoqiú.
Zhè yāoqiú fāxiàn zhīchí luójí héfǎlǜ, shìshí shàng, niǔyuē zài zhège wèntí shàng de gǔlǎo hé jiésuàn de fǎlǜ.
B-2.
Niǔyuē zhōu fǎlǜ guǎnxiá de qiángzhì xìng yāoqiú, yǒuxiào dì zhuàn yí le zīchǎn zhuǎnyí zhì yīgè xìntuō zhè shì méiyǒu zhēngyì de zhèngquàn huà xìntuō, rú bèigào, xū dào niǔyuē de pǔtōng fǎ. Chuándá gěi tā, – de – tāmen jiāng bùdé bù jiànlì zìjǐ de suǒyǒuquán, yīn tóuzī zhě zài dǐyā pǐn de quánlì. Qícì, shì zuìzhōng, zài xìntuō jiézhǐ rìqí hòu de 90 tiānnèi, shíjì běn piào bìxū bèishū gěi shòutuō rén de zhuānxiàng xìntuō de yāoqiú
zīchǎn yǒuxiào dì zhuàn yí dào xìnrèn, yīncǐ shǐ sunject chéngduì piàojù xìntuō cáichǎn. Zhè yāoqiú fāxiàn zhīchí luójí héfǎlǜ, shìshí shàng, niǔyuē zài zhège wèntí shàng de gǔlǎo hé jiésuàn de fǎlǜ.
.
B-3. Niǔyuē zhōu fǎlǜ guǎnxiá de qiángzhì xìng yāoqiú yǒuxiào dì chuándì
yīgè zīchǎn zhuǎnyí zhì yīgè xìntuō zhè shì méiyǒu zhēngyì de zhèngquàn huà xìntuō, rú bèigào, xū dào niǔyuē de pǔtōng fǎ. Niǔyuē de xìntuō fǎ shì gǔdài hé jiějué.
Niǔyuē xìntuō fǎ lǐngyù yǒu jǐ gè yuánzé shì, yǐ rènhé tèdìng de zīchǎn shìfǒu wèi gěi dìng xìnrèn de zīchǎn de fēnxī yóuwéi zhòngyào.
Gēnjù niǔyuē fǎlǜ, yī xiàng zīchǎn shìfǒu shì xìntuō cáichǎn de fēnxī shì gēnjù lǐpǐn de fǎlǜ juédìng. Wèile yǒu yīgè yǒuxiào de shēngqián zèngyǔ, bìxū yǒu yīgè jiāofù de lǐwù (zǎo zài 1935 nián, zài bó gē yīn sù zhānmǔsī, 282 NYS 18, 21 (1935), niǔyuē zuìgāo fǎyuàn rènwéi shāngyè xìntuō, yě chēng wèi wèi “ ” mǎ sà zhū sè xìntuō “ , bèi rènwéi shì pǔtōng fǎ de xìntuō. Yě kàn dàole chóngxīn fángdìchǎn pǔ luò tè jīn de, 290 NYS2d 46, 49 (niǔyuē zhōu sū ěr 1968) (biǎozhēng pǔtōng gǔ xìntuō jījīn wèi” “pǔtōng fǎ de xìnrèn [S] “”), qítā sīfǎ guǎnxiá qū shìfǒu xiāngfú. Jiàn, lìrú, méi fēi’ěrdé sù chá tǎ nǔ jiā de dì yī “yínháng quánguó xìng, 137 F.2D 1013(dì liù xúnhuí 1943) (shìyòng pǔtōng fǎ de xìnrèn yuánzé de dǐyā cānyù zhèngshū chí chí yǒu rén).
Zài xìntuō nà li yǒu yīgè shòutuō rén bùshì bǎo rén qítā de qíngkuàng xià, zhuǎnràng jiāng tōngguò xiàn yǒu de guīzé guǎnxiá de yìxiàng hé jiāofù (de lǐwù de yuánsù) “ ” zài chóngxīn bèikè ěr,2004 niǔyuē zhōu huá yùn. 51773U, 4 (N.Y. Sur. Kèlā,2004 nián). Lǐwù de zhǔtí jìnxíng shíwù jiāo shōu) huò tuīdìng huò xiàngzhēng xìng jiāo huò (rú yǐ kuìzèng de gōngjù) zúgòu bōlí tǒngzhì hé duì fángdìchǎn tiáokòng de juānzhù zhě hé “shénme shì zúyǐ gòuchéng jiāo huò’bìxū dìngzhì, yǐ mǎnzú ànjiàn’de qíngkuàng “ .
Chuánsòng guīzé guīdìng, “'[zhōng] yào wánshàn yīgè sòng lǐwù bìxū shì wánměi de, yīnwèi gāi wùyè dì xìngzhì hé dāngshìrén de qíngkuàng hé zhōuwéi huánjìng huì hélǐ de yǔnxǔ’.” “Gēnjù niǔyuē zhōu de fǎlǜ yǒu sì gè jīběn yàosù gèrén cáichǎn de yǒuxiào xìnrèn: (1) Zhǐdìng shòuyì rén de; (2 ) zhǐdìng de shòutuō rén, shuí bùnéng shì shòuyì rén; (3 ) jījīn huò qítā cáichǎn zúyǐ zhǐdìng huò quèdìng, yǐ shǐ yǔqí suǒyǒuquán chuándì gěi shòutuō rén; hé (4 ) de jījīn huò qítā cáichǎn, huò tāmen de hé fǎ zhuǎnràng gěi shòutuō rén, yǐ tōngguò hé fǎ suǒyǒuquán qízhōng yǐ tā zuòwéi shòutuō rén de yìtú shíjì jiāofù. “Yǒu gēnjù pǔtōng fǎ, méiyǒu xìnrèn, zhídào yǒu yīgè yǒuguān zīchǎn de yǒuxiào jiāofù xìntuō. (Jiàn, sàbó de shìqíng, 10 NY2d 94, 98-99, tóng qián; Speelman v pàsīkǎ ěr, 10 NY2d 313, 318-320, tóngshàng; lí lí sù, 117 NY 421, 428-429, tóngshàng; wùzhí kē’ēn, 187 yìngyòng chéngxù. Xī. 392, 95) Wèi rúguǒ xìnrèn bùnéng huòdé NY2d 48, 56 (NY 1986) yǐnyòng gé lǔ ēn sù gé lǔ ēn, 68.
(Sàbó shìxiàng, shàng wénzhōng, zài dì 98 yè). (Tóngshàng, wén sēn tè v lǐ kè sī, 248 NY 76, 83; zhōu Van Alstyne, shàng wén de wùzhí, dì 309; kàn dào de, lí lí sù, tóng qián, dì 428) yǐn zì gé lǔ ēn sù gé lǔ ēn, 68 NY2d 48, 56-57 (niǔyuē zhōu 1986).
Bùlǎng sù sī bō ěr, 180 NY 201, 209-210 (niǔyuē zhōu 1904). Zhídào jiāofù gěi shòutuō rén de cáichǎn shòuyǔ rén jìnxíng, huò zhízhì gāi děng zhèngquàn de cáichǎn shòuyǔ rén de shēngmíng, dāng tā zìjǐ shì shòutuō rén, chūxiàn zài bù kǎolǜ jiànlì yīgè xìntuō de shòuyì rén méiyǒu quánlì (cānjiàn lǐ gé ěr v juéduì quèdìng zhōngyāng hànnuòwēi yínháng jí xìntuō yǒuxiàn gōngsī, 266 yìngyòng chéngxù fēnqū 586; . Gurlitz de wùzhí [lín dé], 105 záxiàng 30, aff’d 190 yìngyòng chéngxù fēnqū 907, tóng qián; . Mǎkèsī sù mǎkèsī, 5 záxiàng 2D 42) wèi yǐnyòng sà sī màn sù sà sī màn, 61 AD2D 838 (niǔyuē zhōu yìngyòng. Xī. 2D dǎdào 1978). Hé xìntuō fǎ (EPTL) dì 7-2.1 (Sān) shòuquán tóuzī xìntuō jījīn shōugòu bùdòngchǎn huò gèrén cáichǎn“de xìnrèn, zhèyàng de míngchēng de míngchēng pī zhǐdìng zài wénshū shuō de xìnrèn. ”
Cǐwài, shuāngfāng de shíjì hétóng, qízhōng bāo guā bǎoguǎn xiéyì, ànjiē dàikuǎn gòumǎi xiéyì, yǐjí xìntuō wénjiàn bèi chēng wèi “gòngtóng shǐyòng jí fúwù xiéyì” guīdìng de piàojù jí ànjiē zhuǎnràng de yīgè fēicháng jùtǐ de fāngfǎ, yǐ xìntuō.
Yīnwèi zhuǎnyí de fāngfǎ zài yú xìntuō yíqì, tā shì bù shòu rèn hé chāyì huò yìcháng hé xìntuō fǎ (EPTL) dì 7-2.1 (Sān) shòuquán tóuzī xìntuō jījīn shōugòu bùdòngchǎn huò gèrén cáichǎn“zhōng de míngchēng xìnrèn, zhèyàng de míngchēng zài zhǐdìng de wénshū shuō de xìnrèn. “Cǐwài, shuāngfāng de shíjì hétóng, qízhōng bāo guā bǎoguǎn xiéyì, ànjiē dàikuǎn gòumǎi xiéyì, bìng chēng wéi xìntuō wénshū” gòngtóng shǐyòng jí fúwù xiéyì “, dìng míng gāi piàojù jí ànjiē zhuǎnràng gěi xìntuō de yīgè fēicháng jùtǐ de fāngfǎ.
Yīnwèi zhuǎnyí de fāngfǎ zài yú xìntuō yíqì, tā shì bù shòu rèn hé chāyì huò yìcháng.
Zài duì gèrén zhàiwùrén zuòwéi shòutuō rén, gēnjù wéifǎn shòutuō yìwù lǐlùn de dòngzuò, xìntuō wénjiàn guīdìng, chéngduì piàojù jí ànjiē zhuǎnràng yú shòutuō rén, ér gēnjù niǔyuē xìnrèn fǎlǜ guīdìng de yǒuxiào chuándì. Jiē xiàlái de wèntí – “shénme gòuchéng yǒuxiào de chuándì gěi shòutuō rén” shǔxìng, nàme jiù méiyǒu xìnrènguò gāi shǔxìng kě qiángzhì zhíxíng.
Rúguǒ méiyǒu zhǐdìng shòuyì rén de yùnsòng chuándá gěi xìntuō de chángshì jiāng huì shībài.
Zài dǐyā dàikuǎn zhèngquàn huà de bèijǐng xià, hěn xiǎnrán, zài shòutuō rén de míngyì de piàojù jí ànjiē de xìntuō dēngjì shì bìyào de yǒuxiào zhuǎnyí de xìnrèn.
Zài niǔyuē zhízhèng xìntuō de fǎguī, zhìyè quánlì shēnsù bèi bóhuí zhèngquè de, tā yǐjīng shōugòule méiyǒu biāotí de shāngpǐn huò dúlì de kòngzhì, yīncǐ zài dì, yǒu chāoguò cáichǎn wéifǎn rèn hé shíjì de xìnrèn. Kermani sù zìyóu jí wù. Chājiàn. Yǒuxiàn gōngsī 4 AD2D 603 (niǔyuē zhōu yìngyòng. Xī. 3D dǎdào 1957). 15 Fùguó yínháng sù nóngmín,2008 niǔyuē záxiàng fǎlǜ shùjùkù 3248.
Fǎyuàn jì bù huì hūlüè jiāoyì wénjiàn de shíjì guīdìng, yě bù chuàngjiàn hétóng de bǔjiù cuòshī yóu dìng yuē gè fāng lǐshì héyuē bèi shěnglüèle. Cānjiàn Schmidt sù cítóu gōngsī, 468 NYS2d 649, 654 (niǔyuē zhōu App.Div. 1983) (“” Zhè shì gēnběn, wǒmen zhíxíng hétóng, bù chóng xiě tāmen…… Yóu yīfāng dāngshìrén chéngdān de zérèn, mùdì shì zuòwéi yīgè chéngnuò…… Yīnggāi biǎoshì wèi zhèyàng de, ér bù shì liú gěi mplication “ ” (yǐnwén è) ); Morlee xiāoshòu gōngsī sù shāng xìntuō yǒuxiàn zérèn gōngsī, 172 NE2d 280, 282 (NY1961) (“” [T] de cports bùdé tōngguò shīgōng zēngjiā huò xiāofèi fāngmiàn…… , Cóng’ér “shǐ wèi dāngshìrén qiāndìng xīn hétóng de nterpret [zhèndòng xìng] de huǎngzi xià. ‘ “ ” (Yǐnhào sù hǎi lēi jiàohuáng, 250 NE 881, 882 (niǔyuē zhōu 1928) )
dāng zhuǎnyí dào shòutuō rén de yāoqiú, zài gōngsī huò shāngyè xìntuō qìyuē de shàngxiàwén zhōng chákàn, dàyuē fúhé zhèxiē yāoqiú de xiángxì xìnxī biàn dé hěn míngxiǎn.
Shǒuxiān bìxū míngbái, “ [t] tā gōngsī shòutuō rén yǐjīng hěn shǎo yǒu gòngtóng zhī chù yǔ pǔtōng shòutuō rén gēnjù qǐyè de qìyuē shòutuō rén yǒu tā [tā] dìngyì de quánlì hé yìwù, ér bù shì yóu shòutuō guānxì, ér shì yóu zhuānmén de tiáokuǎn gāi xiéyì.
Tā [tā] de zhuàngtài gèng shì shòutuō rén.“Shìshí shàng, ” [yī] n de qìyuē shòutuō rén shì bùtóng yú pǔtōng de shòutuō rén. Yǔ hòu zhě xiāng bǐ, mǒu xiē qíngkuàng xià yě zhǐ xiànyú qìyuē shòutuō rén de zhízé, nàxiē zài yú běn qìyuē. “Zérèn yóu qìyuē xiéyì de tiáokuǎn guīdìng. Jiésuàn, shòutuō rén de zhízé hé quánlì shì yóu xìntuō xiéyì de tiáokuǎn hé dìngyì wèi shòuyì rén “ . Tíhuò yángé zūnshǒu yǔ PSA/xìntuō wénjiàn de guīdìng.
Cǐwài, jiànyú niǔyuē dìchǎn dàguó hé xìntuō fǎ dì 7-2.1 (Sān) shòuquán shòutuō rén qǔdé xìntuō zuòwéi gāi míngchēng de name shǔxìng “pī zhǐdìng zài yīgè lìyì xiāngguān zhě bǐ de qìyuē shòutuō rén zhī yī, tā yīzhí shuō, lèisì yú yī gè lìyì xiāngguān zhě de tóngshí, “ [yī] T zhǐ tōngguò duànliàn zhōngchéng de shòutuō yìwù, zhèxiē ànjiàn hé fǎguī de míngquè dǎorù de shì, zài qǐyè qìyuē tiáokuǎn jiāofù zīchǎn, yǐ shòutuō rén yāoqiú yángé fúhé xìntuō qìyuē de qiángzhì zhuǎnràng tiáokuǎn.
Gǔfèn gōngsī zīběn róngzī hézuò huǒbàn,LP sù shèng bāng yínháng jí xìntuō yǒuxiàn gōngsī 2008 nián niǔyuē zhōu huá yùn. 5766, 7 (Niǔyuē zhōu 2008) lǜsè sù suǒyǒuquán dānbǎo xìntuō yǒuxiàn gōngsī 223 12 wèi AD, niǔyuē zhōu 227 252 (dì yī bù), aff’d, 248 N.Y. 627 (1928); Hā zhā dé sù dàtōng guómíng yínháng, 159 záxiàng. 57, 287 N.Y.S. 541 (Zēngkān CT jiǎnchá. 1936), Aff’d, gōngyuán 257 950, 14 NYS2d 147 (dì yī bù), aff’d, 282 NY 652, zhèngshū. Fǒurèn, 311 měiguó 708 (1940)[19] jiàn měi kè ěr sù dàlù zīyuán, 758 F.2D 811, 816 (2D xúnhuí fǎyuàn 1985) yǐn zì Ambac de INDEM. Gōngsī sù měiguó xìn fú yínháng, 151 záxiàng. 2D 334,336 ( . Niǔyuē xiè de Ct 1991).20 Kàn, měiguó xìntuō yǒuxiàn gōngsī v dì yī chéng quánguó xìng yínháng, 57 AD2D 285, 295-296, aff’d 45 NY2d 869; xìntuō fǎ chóng shù [èr]§ 186, pínglùn yī, sì) rú bèi yuányǐn zài In re rìběn xìngyè shī luō dé yínháng jí xìntuō yǒuxiàn gōngsī 271 AD2D 322 (niǔyuē zhōu yìngyòng. Xī. Dì yī dá dào 2000).
Chuándì wénshū de chuàngzuò shuō xìntuō cáichǎn, “yīnggāi yǒu yīdiǎn yíwèn, duìyú zhuǎnyí dào shòutuō rén shì yǒuxiào de, gāi shǔxìng bìxū zài shòutuō rénwéi tèdìng de xìntuō míngyì dēngjì. Xìntuō cáichǎn bùnéng zuòwéi yuángào biàn chēng, bù wánquán bèishū zhuǎnràng bù biǎoshì gāi wùyè yǐ xìntuō xíngshì chí yǒu yóu shòutuō rén zhǐdìng shòuyì rén xìntuō chí yǒu. Shìshí shàng, zhè shì míngxiǎn de zài niǔyuē de fǎlǜ, qìtú zhuǎnyí zhì xìntuō wúfǎ tóngshí zhǐdìng shòutuō rén jí shòuyì rén shì wúxiào de yùnsòng xìntuō. “Wèi néng mìngmíng wèi shòuyì rén de xìntuō chéngxiàn de fēnpèi méiyǒu fǎlǜ yījù. Zhè yī lìchǎng shì jìnyībù zhīchí luójí zài niǔyuē pǔtōng fǎ yóu yǐxià mìngtí:
(2 ) Wánshàn de lǐwù bìxū de jiāofù bìxū shì wánměi de, yīnwèi gāi wùyè dì xìngzhì hé dāngshìrén de qíngkuàng hé zhōuwéi huánjìng huì hélǐ de yǔnxǔ; bìxū yǒu tǒngzhì hé suǒyǒuquán de biàngēng; yìxiàng huò dānchún de wénzì bùnéng tígōng kòngzhì hé quánbǐng de dōngxī nǐ jǐyǔ de shíjì tóuxiáng dì dìfāng.
Zhè shì juānzèng zhě de yìtú jǐyǔle wánchéng jiāoyì de wánchéng. Dāndú de yìtú, wúlùn duōme wánquán jiànlì, shì wújìyúshì de
fùguó yínháng, NA sù nóngmín,2008 niǔyuē zhōu huá yùn 51133U, (cānjiàn lǐ gé ěr sù zhōngyāng hànnuòwēi yínháng jí xìntuō yǒuxiàn gōngsī, 266 yìngyòng chéngxù fēnqū 586 (niǔyuē zhōu xiè de Ct 2008); . Gurlitz de wùzhí [lín dé], 105 záxiàng 30, aff’d 190 yìngyòng chéngxù fēnqū 907, tóngshàng; . Mǎkèsī sù mǎkèsī, 5 záxiàng 2D 42) yǐn zì sà sī màn sù sà sī màn, 61 AD2D 838 (niǔyuē zhōu yìngyòng chéngxù fēnqū 2D dǎdào 1978). Wén sēn tè sù pǔ tè nán, 248 NY 76, 82-84 (niǔyuē zhōu 1928).
Without the consummated act of delivery, how could one logically argue that delivering a promissory note endorsed in blank (making it bearer paper) into a trustee’s vault is “delivery beyond the authority and control of the donor” when the vault is managed by the agent of the donor? If the donor were to claim that the promissory note “If the donor delivers the property to the third person simply for the purpose of his delivering it to the donee as the agent of the donor, the gift is not complete until the property has actually been delivered to the donee.
Such a delivery is not absolute, for the ordinary principle of agency applies, by which the donor can revoke the authority of the agent, and resume possession of the property, at any time before the authority is executed.”” Were its property, not the trustee’s, there would be no evidentiary basis for the trustee to claim ownership.
Accordingly, New York law expressly requires that for property to be validly delivered to a trust, the property must pass completely out of the control of the donor (and its agents): Another case addressing this issue holds that “In order that delivery to a third person shall be effective, he must be the agent of the donee.
Delivery to an agent of the donor is ineffective, as the agency could be terminated before delivery to the intended donee.”Trustees for securitizations often occupy many roles simultaneously and conflictingly both as document custodians and trustees for myriad thousands of securitizations as well as for various parties who are active in the securitization process including originators, servicers, sponsors and depositors. Accordingly, it is inconceivable that anything other than registration into
Phillippsen v. Emigrant Indus.Sav. Bank, N.Y.S.2D 133, 137-138 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1948). (Beaver v. Beaver, supra, 117 N.Y. 421, 428, 22 N.E. 940, 941, 6 L.R.A. 403, Am.St.Rep. 531). See, also, Grant Trust& Savings Co. V. Tucker, 49 Ind. App. 345; Furenes v. Eide, 109 Ia. 511; Dickeschied v. Exchange Bank, W. Va. 340; Love v. Francis, Mich. 181; [**428] Merchant v. Building Co. [***15], Ohio Circuit Ct. 190.) In re Nat’l Commer. Bank& Trust Co., 257 A.D. 868, 869-870 (N.Y. App. Div. 3D Dep’t 1939) citing Vincent v. Rix, supra v. Rix, supra; Bump v. Pratt, Hun, 201.
“The name of the trust as such name is designated in the instrument creating said trust property” could ever qualify as delivery to any particular securitization trust. Absent such registration, there would be nothing that would indicate which of thousands of trusts in the care of a trustee a particular promissory note might belong to or if it were the personal property of the This point was recently slammed home to the public consciousness in a watershed decision out of the State of Massachusetts. On January 7, 2011, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts—the highest court in that state—rendered a unanimous verdict in a case captioned U.S. Natl. Bank Assn., Trustee, v. Ibanez, For ABFC 20050PT 1 Trust, ABFC Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005-0PT 1, No. SJC-10694, (Mass. Jan. 7, 2011).
While that ruling may or may not be binding upon this case; it is very much contrary to the mortgage securitization industry’s position in cases involving the foreclosure of mortgage loans which have allegedly been securitized. The facts of the case in Massachusetts and the facts of this instant case are similar.
The case was a ruling on two consolidated cases – both cases were filed by banks (as trustees for two separate trusts) to quiet title on properties they had foreclosed and purchased at the foreclosure sale to satisfy the mortgagor’s debt.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that neither bank proved that its trust owned the mortgages when they foreclosed on the homes; therefore, neither had title to the foreclosed properties and that their foreclosures were void. Effectively, this put the borrowers back into the place they were before the foreclosure.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did not tell the homeowners they are allowed to shirk their obligation to pay their mortgages, which are still outstanding, valid obligations.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did, however, sharply instruct the banks that they must have the proper documentation which demonstrates a valid right to foreclose before a foreclosure can be carried out.
It is well worth noting the conclusion of the Massachusetts Ibanez opinion. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court noted that “The legal principles and requirements we set forth are well established in our case law and our statutes.
All that has changed is the [banks’] apparent failure to abide by those principles and requirements in the rush to sell mortgage-backed securities.” Just as the principles and requirements of Massachusetts law are well-founded, so too are those of New York law, and they should be upheld even if adherence to the law is inconvenient for banks rushing to sell mortgage-backed securities.
B-3 THE INTENT TO TRANSFER AN ASSET TO THE TRUST IS NOT A TRANSFER TO THE TRUST
The contents of these statutes, cases and contracts lead to one inescapable conclusion: The intent of the parties and the requirements of the contracts were that the assets be conveyed to the Trusts by the Trust closing dates.
For a transfer to any foreclosure industry has chosen to argue that it is clear that it was the parties’“intent” to transfer these assets and therefore “no court” would ever declare that these assets were not transferred to these trusts. The controlling law is overwhelmingly against the industry in this position. The failure to deliver the notes and mortgages to these trusts as required by the trust instruments is a default under the terms of every agreement that these parties executed, including their agreements for payment guarantees with the monoline bond insurers. The securitization industry chose to create its securitization trusts under New York law precisely because the law was ancient and settled.
Now that the actions of the foreclosure industry contradicts that law, parties such as the defendant trust are left to argue hope against precedent. The well-settled New York trust law provides that “A mere intention to make a gift which has not been carried into effect, confers no right upon the intended beneficiary.
There must be also delivery beyond the power of further control and dominion.” The foreclosure industry has chosen to argue that it is clear that it was the parties’“intent” to transfer these assets and therefore “no court” would ever declare that these assets were not transferred to these trusts.
The controlling law is overwhelmingly against the Movant`s in this position.
The failure to deliver the notes and mortgages to these trusts as required by the trust instruments is a default under the terms of every agreement that these parties executed, including their agreements for payment guarantees with the monoline bond insurers.
The securitization industry chose to create its securitization trusts under New York law precisely because the law was ancient and settled.
Now that the actions of the foreclosure industry contradicts that law, parties such as the Plaintiff trust are left to argue hope against precedent. The well-settled New York trust law provides that “A mere intention to make a gift which has not been carried into effect, confers no right upon the intended beneficiary. There must be also delivery beyond the power of further control and dominion.” Equity will not help out an incomplete delivery.
If the agent of the donor has failed to make the delivery expected equity will particular trust to be effective, there should have been a registration of the assets into “the name of the trust as such name is designated in the instrument creating said trust property”—this is the only method by which these assets could have been “divested from the possession and title” of the donors. In response to the lucidity of the controlling law on this issue, the mortgage (Vincent v. Rix, 248 N.Y. 76, 85 V. Rix, 248 N.Y. 76, 85; Matter of Green, 247 App. Div. 540; McCarthy v. Pieret, 281 N.Y. 407, 409.) As cited by In re FIRST TRUST& DEPOSIT CO., 264 A.D. 940, 941 (N.Y. App. Div. 4Th Dep’t 1942) not declare him a trustee for the donee. “Thus, Thornton on Gifts and Advancements (§140) notes: “In determining whether there has been a valid delivery, the situation of the subject of the gift must be considered.
If it is actually present, and capable of delivery without serious effort, it is not too much to say that there must be an actual delivery, although the donor need not in person or by agent hand the article to the donee, if the latter assumes the possession.” There was absolutely nothing in the physical nature of the papers to be delivered in this case, or in the physical condition or the surroundings of the donor, that made a symbolical delivery necessary of the thing given has been very largely relaxed, but a symbolical delivery is sufficient delivery as nearly perfect and complete as the circumstances will allow.
Some cases have confined the duties of the indenture trustee to those set forth in the indenture. From this context springs the seminal rule of law that effectively causes the parties to the Trust agreement and the Trust to be “gored by their own bull”.
New It is true that the old rule requiring an actual delivery only when the conditions are so adverse to actual delivery as to make a symbolical Further, the failure to convey to a trust per the controlling trust document is not a matter that may be cured by the breaching party. New York law is unflinchingly clear that a trustee has only the authority granted by the instrument under which he holds, either deed or will.
This fundamental rule has existed from the beginning and is still law. An indenture trustee is unlike the ordinary trustee. In contrast with the latter, Vincent v. Putnam, 248 N.Y. 76, 82-84 (N.Y. 1928) In re Van Alstyne, 207 N.Y. 298, 309-310 (N.Y. 1913).31 In re Van Alstyne, 207 N.Y. 298, 309-310 (N.Y. 1913). Allison& Ver Valen Co. V. McNee, 170 Misc. 144, 146 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1939). Ambac Indem. Corp. V. Bankers Trust Co., 151 Misc. 2D 334, 336 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1991).
Therefore, the trustees for these trusts may only acquire assets in the manner set forth in the trust Instrument and may not acquire assets in violation of the trust instrument.
To the extent that any assets were not conveyed to these trusts as required and when required by the trust instrument, they are not assets of the trusts and the trustee cannot correct this deficiency now since the funding period provided in the Trust instruments passed many years ago.
The attempts to acquire assets by these trusts which violate the terms of the Trust instrument are void.
Therefore, late assignments, improper chains of title, late endorsements, improper chains of title in the endorsements and the attempt to transfer to the trusts by foreclosure deed are just a number of the many examples of actions which are void if taken by a party to the indenture who is attempting to transfer property to the Trustee for the Trust in violation of the trust instrument.
C. THE TRUST NEVER PROPERLY ACQUIRED THE MORTGAGE NOTE AND THE TRUST CANNOT CURE ITS FATAL STANDING DEFECT
Therefore, the trustees for these trusts may only acquire assets in the manner set forth in the trust instrument and may not acquire assets in violation of the trust instrument.
To the extent that any assets were not conveyed to these trusts as required and when required by the trust instrument, they are not assets of the trusts and the trustee cannot correct this deficiency now since the funding period provided in the Trust instruments passed many years ago.
The attempt to acquire assets by these trusts which violate the terms of the Trust instrument are void. Therefore, late assignments, improper chains of title, late endorsements, improper chains of title in the endorsements and the attempt to transfer to the trusts by foreclosure deed are just a number of the many examples of actions which are void if taken by a party to the indenture who is attempting to transfer property to the Trustee for the Trust in violation of the trust instrument.
C. THE TRUST NEVER PROPERLY ACQUIRED THE MORTGAGE NOTE AND THE TRUST CANNOT CURE ITS FATAL STANDING DEFECT
York’s law is so well-settled regarding the limitations of a trustee’s power to act that New York’s Estates Powers and Trust Law Section 7-2.4 States: § 7-2.4 Act of trustee in contravention of trust If the trust is expressed in the instrument creating the estate of the trustee, every sale, conveyance or other act of the trustee in contravention of the trust, except as authorized by this article and by any other provision of law, is void.
Under New York law there is no trust over property that has not been properly transferred to a trust. The Defendant Trust stated to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in filings under oath that it has assets in excess of $400 million.
To acquire assets, the Trust must be funded in accordance with the requirements of the PSA/Trust documents. The pertinent terms of the agreement are found at§2.01 (Conveyance of Trust Fund) of the PSA. This section details how the mortgage notes in the instant case were transferred from Bank of America NA. (As Originator) to” U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” .
The Subject note is in Blank and is not made out to the name of the Movant. U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” Bank of America NA, is the alleged mortgage holder as indicated on the note. “Pay to the order of U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” does not have the authority to get the lift of STAY, there is no “showing” of an unbroken chain of endorsements in the documents provided to the Debtor. “According to the requirements set forth in the Trust Agreement.
A series of endorsements of the promissory note reflective of each party who had an interest in the promissory note culminating with a blank endorsement from the depositor at the very minimum.”
The Trust never possessed the mortgage note per the terms of the PSA (Pooling and Service Agreement). Further, in the PSA’s exhibits, Exhibit One sets forth the contents of the collateral file for each mortgage loan that is trust property and further includes a final specific endorsement to the Trustee for the specific trust in this case to effect a final transfer to the Trust and to make the subject note trust property. Any attempt by” U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” Bank of America NA, to transfer the promissory note to the Trust at this late date would fail for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that the closing date of August 30, 2007 passed nearly 6 years ago.
By the terms of the Trust and the applicable provision of the Internal Revenue Code incorporated into and a part of the Trust agreement, the promissory note cannot be transferred to the Trust. The Trust has never owned the subject promissory note and the Trust can never own the subject promissory note.
Trust has not provided documentation to show that it was or is entitled to the money secured by the mortgage of subject property. “U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” has offered no verifiable proof of ownership.
End……
whole trust at link
http://Www.Sec.Gov/Archives/edgar/data/934377/000137940207000041/form424b5.Txt
Prospectus at link
http://Www.Sec.Gov/Archives/edgar/data/934377/000137940207000043/ex4_1.Txt
Pooling and Servicing agreement at link
******************************************
富国银行，通银行，
作为主服务商和证券管理员，
和
美国银行全国协会
作为受托人
共同使用及服务协议
日期为2007年8月30日
按揭直通证书
系列2007-7
上Mtge契据号：668409245
信托的名称：美国2007-7资金信托银证券
据称原贷款人的姓名;美国银行不适用。
截止日期：2007年8月三十日或约
截止日期：2007年8月1日
报告首先一个
摘录主体的贷款融资和服务协议的第二条。该链接还提供以供参考。在利益方，其实是“支付给美国银行全国协会的顺序，如受托人为美国融资公司按揭直通证书，系列2007-7，无追索权的银证券的持有人，”和记和抵押必须在该名称与背书是正确的。在这种情况下，值得注意的是在空白和美国银行的名称
是音符可转让票据或不可转让票据？
第二条
CONVEYANCE按揭贷款;
证书的原签发
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/934377/000137940207000043/ex4_1.txt
第2.01输送按揭贷款。
（一）存款人，同时与签立及交付本协议，特此出售，转让，分配，设置结束，否则传达给受托人代表本信托为Certificateholders的利益，无追索权，所有权利，所有权及并于-49存款人的利益 –
一个<page>
按揭贷款及相关抵押文件，包括所有的利息和本金收到或就按揭贷款与存款的权利（不支付本金及利息，并在抵押贷款上或在截止日期之前支付其他）下BANA服务协议及根据按揭贷款购买协议，包括存款，作为就underthe服务协议（不包括BANA服务协议除外）及相关销售协议保荐人的权利保荐人受让人的权利。
（b）在该等转让及出让方面，寄存人交付或促使交付给受托人，或代表受托人的托管人，为Certificateholders，下列文件或文书就每宗按揭的好处贷款如此分配：
（i）原按揭注意，在下面的表格赞同手动或传真签署：“支付给美国银行全国协会的顺序，如受托人为美国融资公司按揭直通证书，系列2007-7银证券的持有人，无追索权“，与所有必要的干预代言代言显示从发端一个完整的链条，以受托人（每一个这样的代言足以转让方的所有权利，所有权和利益的认可，作为票据持有人或受让人物，并该按揭注），且在任何按揭贷款的情况下，起源于纽约的一个NYCEMA的NYCEMA，新的抵押贷款票据（如适用），综合抵押贷款票据及综合按揭记录的国家;
证券化信托
默认的通知表明，原来的债权人是美国银行，NA尚Movant的名称是在普通法信托的名称。信托是通过一个共同使用及服务协议（“PSA”）创造了一个纽约普通法的信任。根据PSA，贷款据称汇集成一个信任并转换成抵押贷款支持证券。在PSA提供了一个截止日期2007年8月30日，本信托。由于载列如下，这是被要求在其所有资产存入信托的日期。 PSA的规定，纽约州法律管辖收购按揭资产信托。
信托是作为一个REMIC信任。根据国内税收法典（“IRC”）的REMIC规定信托的截止日期也是启动日的信托。截止日期/启动一天是显著的，因为信托基金的所有资产都被转移到信托或之前截止日期，以确保信托收到了REMIC状态。
在IRC提供的相关部分指出：“除第860G（四）提供（2），’如果任何数额的启动一天后促成了REMIC，兹征收税项REMIC中的纳税年度它的贡献被接收等于100％的这种贡献量。“26 USC §860G（D）（1）。
信任的进行交易的能力被限制在授权其信托文件的操作。
房主称，在这里，信托文件只允许一个特定转移到信托的方法，载于PSA的§2.01。 62.01节规定的存款人提供受托人与原按揭票据，空白背书或者背书如下：美国银行全国协会，作为受托人的银证券持有人美国融资公司按揭直通证书，2007系列 – 7，无追索权“，根据适用的协议，无追索权。”所有的事先干预代言必须出示代言的一个完整的链条从发端到受托人。
根据纽约地产大国和信托法§7-2.1（三），属性必须在受托人的名义登记，以便转移到受托人的特定信任是有效的。
1国内税收法典规定，术语“房地产抵押贷款投资管道”和“REMIC”是指任何实体（1）到被视为一个REMIC选举适用于该课税年度及之前所有纳税年度，（2 ）所有，其中有普通权益或剩余权益的利益，（3），已于1（只有1）班的剩余权益（以及所有分派（如有），对于这样的利益是按比例），（4）作为启动日及以后在任何时候都接近第3个月，自此后，其中绝大部分由合格的抵押贷款和获准投资的资产。信托财产不能举行与不完整的代言和分配不显示该物业以信托形式持有由受托人指定受益人的信任。
房主称，这一缺陷意味着，美国银行全国协会，作为受托人的银证券持有人美国融资公司按揭直通证书，系列2007-7，无追索权“，而美国银行是无效的票据持有人。
一，自变量
A.原告信托已没有资格来取消抵押品赎回权因为一直没有有效的可执行的分配给信托的受托人
A-1。
原告信托的管治由一个纽约普通法信托
纽约法律基于其信托协议。美国银行全国协会，作为受托人为美国融资公司按揭直通证书，系列2007-7，无追索权的银证券的持有人，“这种信任是不是这个贷款和名称的鼻祖是不是就说明，这种信任是甚至没有一家银行，银行是其受托人，而该实体是不是房贷，服务商，甚至是银行的鼻祖。
相反，这个实体是由被称为一项协议，建立了纽约普通法信任“池及服务协议”。据称，债务人单曲住房贷款，以及其他贷款，汇集成一个信任并转换成抵押贷款支持证券（“MBS”），可以购买和出售投资 – 被称为证券化的过程。本信托所持有的每一个抵押贷款的基本承兑票据作为为投资者带来潜在的收入来源。
信托涉嫌持有原告的票据于或约2007年8月1日创建的，并且被标识为“美国银行全国协会，作为受托人的银证券持有人美国融资公司按揭直通证书，系列2007-7，无追索权“，”中。
信托，其条款，设置的信托基金的条款包含在汇集和服务协议一个“截止日期”2007年度8月30日（“PSA”或“信托协议”），这是一个大约400页创建信任和定义的权利，义务和当事人的责任信托协议文件。
PSA是提交下誓言与美国证券交易委员会，并连接到作为一个图表1。
在PSA还采用参照一个名为抵押贷款购买协议（“防止洗钱法”），单独的文档。这些不同的文件，因此，收购信托，通过其信托人被起诉，是一家致力于充当“渠道」信托（定义见下文）根据美国国内收入法典（”IRC“）纽约企业信任。根据法规所采用，并纳入信托的“截止日期”的信托基金（2007年8月30日）的条款，信托及适用国税局（“IRS”）的条款也是“启动日”根据IRC的REMIC规定的信托基金。
启动日是显著，因为在IRC绑在其上REMIC信任可接收其资产，以这个日期的限制。在IRC的寻址REMIC的定义的相关部分：信托的抵押贷款资产，在纽约根据PSA的第11.03国的法律管辖。
（一）一般规则。为了这个称号，术语“房地产抵押
投资导管和’REMIC“是指任何实体（1）到被视为一个REMIC选举适用于该课税年度及之前所有纳税年度，（2）所有在其中的普通权益或剩余权益的利益，（ 3），其中有1（只有1）班的剩余权益（以及所有分派（如有），对于这样的利益是按比例），（4）作为结束3个月的启动日之后，并在开始所有时间，其中绝大部分的资产包括合格
抵押贷款和许可investments.26 U.S.C.S. §860D（强调）。
据清偿的责任和受托人的权力由信托协议的条款定义，并且只能由忠诚受益人的信托义务回火（见，美国信托有限公司v第一城全国性银行，57 AD2D285，295-296，aff’d45 NY2d869;信托法重述[二]§186，评论A，D）。看在重新日本兴业施罗德银行及信托有限公司271 AD2D322（纽约州应用。息。第一打道2000）。
26美国法典860G（D）（2）条规定：
（a）任何贡献，以方便清理的呼叫（如规章定义）或合格的清算。
（b）任何付款担保的性质。
（C）任何期间开始启动日的3个月期间的贡献。
（d）任何由一个剩余的任何持有人有资格的储备基金供款
兴趣在REMIC。
（五）在法规许可的其他贡献。
在PSA（主要在第9.12）通过要求各方信任，以避免可能危及任何REMIC的税务状况及/或本信托征收任何税，禁止捐款或受禁交易的任何行动解决了IRC的这些部分。
这些PSA的规定是因为纽约信托法，在IRC的REMIC的规定，和PSA成立为法团的IRC REMIC规定之间的相互作用重要的是在这种情况下，事实的分析。
A-2。
信托文书/ PSA福斯设置一个特定的时间，方法和方式REMIC启动一天之后，兹强加在其中的贡献收到等于100％的这种贡献量的税项REMIC的纳税年度“26 USC 860G（D）（2）条规定：
（2）例外。第（1）款并不适用于它是由现金和任何下列各款中描述的任何贡献：
（a）任何贡献，以方便清理的呼叫（如规章定义）或合格的清算。
（b）任何付款担保的性质。期间开始启动日的3个月内（C）任何贡献。
（四）通过在REMIC的剩余权益的持有人有资格的储备基金的任何贡献。
（五）在法规许可的其他贡献。在PSA（主要在第9.12）通过要求各方信任，以避免可能危及任何REMIC的税务状况及/或本信托征收任何税，禁止捐款或受禁交易的任何行动解决了IRC的这些部分。
这些PSA的规定是因为纽约信托法，在IRC的REMIC的规定，和PSA成立为法团的IRC REMIC规定之间的相互作用重要的是在这种情况下的事实，法院的分析。
信托文书/ PSA提出了一个具体的时间，方法的IRC和方式还提供了禁止交易的定义和禁止的贡献这是有关这种情况下也是如此。在这种情况下的背景下，相关法规是禁止的贡献是如下的定义：
26美国法典860G（D）（1）规定：
除了第860G（四）提供（2），“如果任何金额促成了资金的信托。
信托寻求取消抵押品赎回权的债务人已在其信托协议（PSA）信托与资产资金的具体时间，方法和方式的条款。
最关键的时间是信托的截止日期2007年8月30日，根据PSA的条款，所有的信托资产并转入信托或之前截止日期。
这项规定是为确保信托将收取REMIC状态，因此免缴联邦所得税。 2.02节PSA的（a）项规定的90天的窗口信托截止日期在本信托可完成任何单证缺失或完成要完成资产由存款人转移到任何文件后，
信托。
B.信托协议提供了唯一的方式，这资产会被正确地传送的信任和任何行为违反了信托协议属无效
因此，成为信托资产的资产必须已转移至信托载于PSA的时间内。在时间轴要求额外的90天从IRC的REMIC规定注册成立，以提供一个“清理期限”的REMIC完成启动日（这也是以后与资产的REMIC转让相关的文件信托截止日期）。因此，根据在此情况下，信托协议的平原上，在截止日期/启动日期为2007年8月30日和转移资产注入信托的最后一天是2007年8月30日。
B-1。
资产转让信托根据信托仪器/ PSA作为一个通用的事，也有通过该信托的相关资产，特别是个人的承兑票据，可能会被转移或运输的几种方法。信任的进行交易的能力被限制在授权其信托文件的操作。在这种情况下，信托文件只允许一个特定转移到信托的方法。该方法载于PSA的2.01节：链接到PSA
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/934377/000137940207000043/ex4_1.txt
这个日期是在在表现出139725页中定义的信托文书这一要求被发现在2.01节;
“根据按揭贷款购买协议，出售各卖方，转让，分配，设置结束，否则转达给存款人，无追索权，所有权利，所有权及该等卖方并通过其信托出售的资产中的权益基金….在这样的销售方面，寄存人交付给，并存放，受托人或保管人，作为其代理人，以下文件或文书就每宗按揭贷款如此分配：（i）原按揭注意事项，包括任何车友投票者，不背书空白追索权（A）或美国银行全国协会的顺序，作为受托人的银证券持有人美国融资公司按揭直通证书，系列2007-7，无追索权“的”
（本次转让语言的分析需要一个考虑上述段落的每一部分，在这一段的信托协议中的语言，第一条语句是传输之一，指出“存款人已交付并存放于受托人或托管人以下
文件“。关键文件是原始抵押注意，这需要在这个语言中强制代言：“原来的抵押贷款票据背书….无追索权”后接的措辞中的任一/或格式的两个备选方案。第一个标有“A”的国家美国的“空白或秩序”银行全国协会，作为受托人的银证券持有人美国融资公司按揭直通证书，系列2007-7，无追索权的，“
堆叠后的代言链不中断的这一要求是顶级的抵押文件的最终内容认证的信托利益的要求。
这一要求是在表1的防止洗钱法（按揭贷款购买协议），这是一个附件，并结合如第2.01 PSA的一个组成部分找到。
对于每一个抵押贷款，抵押贷款文件应包括以下各项目，须供买方查阅或其指定，并须送交根据本协议的条款向买方或其指定。 （一）原按揭注意事项，包括任何车手投票者，通过无追索权的“”支付给美国银行全国协会的顺序，作为受托人的银证券持有人美国融资公司按揭直通证书，2007系列的顺序-7，无追索权，“，”，并显示可用的相关按揭贷款卖方代言从原来的收款人及其对人也赞同受托人链不中断的程度;
上述规定清楚表明，同时各方对证券作出规定，即承兑票据对本信托可能会在空白交付给受托人;有两个要求，那是强制性的。首先，要求出售给信托所有音符
有代言的一个完整的链条从原来的收款人它认可受托人的人。
从证券化，特定的企业关注这一要求源于即证据有，实际上是一个“真实出售”的证券化资产，他们是在没有办法的鼻祖，保荐人或存款人仍然财产，因而不受为发端，赞助，或存款人的债权人的债权。其次，是最终，在信托截止日期后的90天内，实际本票必须背书给受托人的专项信托的资产有效地转移到信任，因此使主体承兑票据信托财产的要求。
这要求发现支持逻辑和法律，事实上，纽约在这个问题上的古老和结算的法律。
B-2。
纽约州法律管辖的强制性要求，有效地转移了资产转移至一个信托这是没有争议的证券化信托，如被告，须到纽约的普通法。传达给它， – 的 – 他们将不得不建立自己的所有权，因投资者在抵押品的权利。其次，是最终，在信托截止日期后的90天内，实际本票必须背书给受托人的专项信托的要求
资产有效地转移到信任，因此使sunject承兑票据信托财产。这要求发现支持逻辑和法律，事实上，纽约在这个问题上的古老和结算的法律。
。
B-3。纽约州法律管辖的强制性要求有效地传递
一个资产转移至一个信托这是没有争议的证券化信托，如被告，须到纽约的普通法。纽约的信托法是古代和解决。
纽约信托法领域有几个原则是，以任何特定的资产是否为给定信任的资产的分析尤为重要。
根据纽约法律，一项资产是否是信托财产的分析是根据礼品的法律决定。为了有一个有效的生前赠与，必须有一个交付的礼物（早在1935年，在伯戈因诉詹姆斯，282 NYS18，21（1935），纽约最高法院认为商业信托，也称为为“”马萨诸塞信托“，被认为是普通法的信托。也看到了重新房地产普洛特金的，290 NYS2d46，49（纽约州苏尔1968）（表征普通股信托基金为”“普通法的信任[S] “”），其他司法管辖区是否相符。见，例如，梅菲尔德诉查塔努加的第一“银行全国性，137 F.2d1013（第六巡回1943）（适用普通法的信任原则的抵押参与证书池持有人）。
在信托那里有一个受托人不是保人其他的情况下，转让将通过现有的规则管辖的意向和交付（的礼物的元素）“”在重新贝克尔，2004纽约州滑运。 51773U，4（N.Y. Sur.克拉，2004年）。礼物的主题进行实物交收）或推定或象征性交货（如以馈赠的工具）足够剥离统治和对房地产调控的捐助者和“什么是足以构成交货’必须定制，以满足案件‘的情况“。
传送规则规定，“'[中]要完善一个送礼物必须是完美的，因为该物业的性质和当事人的情况和周围环境会合理地允许‘。”“根据纽约州的法律有四个基本要素个人财产的有效信任：（1）指定受益人的; （2）指定的受托人，谁不能是受益人; （3）基金或其他财产足以指定或确定，以使与其所有权传递给受托人;和（4）的基金或其他财产，或它们的合法转让给受托人，以通过合法所有权其中以他作为受托人的意图实际交付。“有根据普通法，没有信任，直到有一个有关资产的有效交付信托。 （见，萨博的事情，10 NY2d94，98-99，同前; Speelman v帕斯卡尔，10 NY2d313，318-320，同上;狸狸诉，117 NY421，428-429，同上;物质科恩，187应用程序。息。392，95）为如果信任不能获得NY2d48，56（NY1986）引用格鲁恩诉格鲁恩，68。
（萨博事项，上文中，在第98页）。 （同上，文森特v里克斯，248 NY76，83;州Van Alstyne，上文的物质，第309;看到的，狸狸诉，同前，第428）引自格鲁恩诉格鲁恩，68 NY2d48 ，56-57（纽约州1986）。
布朗诉斯波尔，180 NY201，209-210（纽约州1904）。直到交付给受托人的财产授予人进行，或直至该等证券的财产授予人的声明，当他自己是受托人，出现在不考虑建立一个信托的受益人没有权利（参见里格尔v绝对确定中央汉诺威银行及信托有限公司，266应用程序分区586;。Gurlitz的物质[林德]，105杂项30，aff’d190应用程序分区907，同前;。马克思诉马克思，5杂项2D42）为引用萨斯曼诉萨斯曼，61 AD2D838（纽约州应用。息。2D打道1978）。和信托法（EPTL）第7-2.1（三）授权投资信托基金收购不动产或个人财产“的信任，这样的名称的名称被指定在文书说的信任。”
此外，双方的实际合同，其中包括保管协议，按揭贷款购买协议，以及信托文件被称为“共同使用及服务协议”规定的票据及按揭转让的一个非常具体的方法，以信托。
因为转移的方法载于信托仪器，它是不受任何差异或异常和信托法（EPTL）第7-2.1（三）授权投资信托基金收购不动产或个人财产“中的名称信任，这样的名称在指定的文书说的信任。“此外，双方的实际合同，其中包括保管协议，按揭贷款购买协议，并称为信托文书”共同使用及服务协议“，订明该票据及按揭转让给信托的一个非常具体的方法。
因为转移的方法载于信托仪器，它是不受任何差异或异常。
在对个人债务人作为受托人，根据违反受托义务理论的动作，信托文件规定，承兑票据及按揭转让予受托人，而根据纽约信任法律规定的有效传递。接下来的问题 – “什么构成有效的传递给受托人”属性，那么就没有信任过该属性可强制执行。
如果没有指定受益人的运送传达给信托的尝试将会失败。
在抵押贷款证券化的背景下，很显然，在受托人的名义的票据及按揭的信托登记是必要的有效转移的信任。
在纽约执政信托的法规，置业权力申诉被驳回正确的，他已经收购了没有标题的商品或独立的控制，因此在地，有超过财产违反任何实际的信任。 Kermani诉自由及物。插件。有限公司4 AD2D603（纽约州应用。息。3D打道1957）。 15富国银行诉农民，2008纽约杂项法律数据库3248。
法院既不会忽略交易文件的实际规定，也不创建合同的补救措施由订约各方理事合约被省略了。参见Schmidt诉磁头公司，468 NYS2d649，654（纽约州App.Div。1983）（“”这是根本，我们执行合同，不重写他们……由一方当事人承担的责任，目的是作为一个承诺……应该表示为这样的，而不是留给mplication“”（引文略））; Morlee销售公司诉商信托有限责任公司，172 NE2d280，282（NY1961）（“”[T]的cports不得通过施工增加或消费方面……，从而“使为当事人签订新合同的nterpret[振动性]的幌子下。‘“”（引号诉海勒教皇，250 NE881，882（纽约州1928））
当转移到受托人的要求，在公司或商业信托契约的上下文中查看，大约符合这些要求的详细信息变得很明显。
首先必须明白，“[t]他公司受托人已经很少有共同之处与普通受托人根据企业的契约受托人有他[她]定义的权利和义务，而不是由受托关系，而是由专门的条款该协议。
他[她]的状态更是受托人。“事实上，”[一] n的契约受托人是不同于普通的受托人。与后者相比，某些情况下也只限于契约受托人的职责，那些载于本契约。“责任由契约协议的条款规定。结算，受托人的职责和权力是由信托协议的条款和定义为受益人“。提货严格遵守与PSA/信托文件的规定。
此外，鉴于纽约地产大国和信托法第7-2.1（三）授权受托人取得信托作为该名称的name属性“被指定在一个利益相关者比的契约受托人之一，它一直说，类似于一个利益相关者的同时，“[一] T只通过锻炼忠诚的受托义务，这些案件和法规的明确导入的是，在企业契约条款交付资产，以受托人要求严格符合信托契约的强制转让条款。
股份公司资本融资合作伙伴，LP诉圣邦银行及信托有限公司2008年纽约州滑运。 5766，7（纽约州2008）绿色诉所有权担保信托有限公司22312位AD，纽约州227 252（第一部），aff’d，248 N.Y.627（1928）;哈扎德诉大通国民银行，159杂项。 57，287 N.Y.S. 541（增刊CT检查。1936），aff’d，公元257950，14 NYS2d147（第一部），aff’d，282 NY652，证书。否认，311美国708（1940）[19]见美克尔诉大陆资源，758 F.2d811，816（2D巡回法院1985）引自Ambac的INDEM。公司诉美国信孚银行，151杂项。 2D334,336（。纽约燮的Ct1991）.20看，美国信托有限公司v第一城全国性银行，57 AD2D285，295-296，aff’d45 NY2d869;信托法重述[二]§186，评论一，四）如被援引在In re日本兴业施罗德银行及信托有限公司271 AD2D322（纽约州应用。息。第一打道2000）。
传递文书的创作说信托财产，“应该有一点疑问，对于转移到受托人是有效的，该属性必须在受托人为特定的信托名义登记。信托财产不能作为原告辩称，不完全背书转让不表示该物业以信托形式持有由受托人指定受益人信托持有。事实上，这是明显的在纽约的法律，企图转移至信托无法同时指定受托人及受益人是无效的运送信托。 “未能命名为受益人的信托呈现的分配没有法律依据。这一立场是进一步支持逻辑在纽约普通法由以下命题：
（2）完善的礼物必需的交付必须是完美的，因为该物业的性质和当事人的情况和周围环境会合理地允许;必须有统治和所有权的变更;意向或单纯的文字不能提供控制和权柄的东西拟给予的实际投降的地方。
这是捐赠者的意图给予了完成交易的完成。单独的意图，无论多么完全建立，是无济于事的
富国银行，NA诉农民，2008纽约州滑运51133U，（参见里格尔诉中央汉诺威银行及信托有限公司，266应用程序分区586（纽约州燮的Ct2008）;。Gurlitz的物质[林德] ，105杂项30，aff’d190应用程序分区907，同上;。马克思诉马克思，5杂项2D42）引自萨斯曼诉萨斯曼，61 AD2D838（纽约州应用程序分区2D打道1978）。文森特诉普特南，248 NY76，82-84（纽约州1928）。
Without the consummated act of delivery, how could one logically argue that delivering a promissory note endorsed in blank (making it bearer paper) into a trustee’s vault is “delivery beyond the authority and control of the donor” when the vault is managed by the agent of the donor? If the donor were to claim that the promissory note “If the donor delivers the property to the third person simply for the purpose of his delivering it to the donee as the agent of the donor, the gift is not complete until the property has actually been delivered to the donee.
Such a delivery is not absolute, for the ordinary principle of agency applies, by which the donor can revoke the authority of the agent, and resume possession of the property, at any time before the authority is executed.”” were its property, not the trustee’s, there would be no evidentiary basis for the trustee to claim ownership.
Accordingly, New York law expressly requires that for property to be validly delivered to a trust, the property must pass completely out of the control of the donor (and its agents): Another case addressing this issue holds that “In order that delivery to a third person shall be effective, he must be the agent of the donee.
Delivery to an agent of the donor is ineffective, as the agency could be terminated before delivery to the intended donee.”Trustees for securitizations often occupy many roles simultaneously and conflictingly both as document custodians and trustees for myriad thousands of securitizations as well as for various parties who are active in the securitization process including originators, servicers, sponsors and depositors. Accordingly, it is inconceivable that anything other than registration into
Phillippsen v. Emigrant Indus.Sav. Bank, N.Y.S.2d 133, 137-138 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1948). (Beaver v. Beaver, supra, 117 N.Y. 421, 428, 22 N.E. 940, 941, 6 L.R.A. 403, Am.St.Rep. 531). See, also, Grant Trust & Savings Co. v. Tucker, 49 Ind. App. 345; Furenes v. Eide, 109 Ia. 511; Dickeschied v. Exchange Bank, W. Va. 340; Love v. Francis, Mich. 181; [**428] Merchant v. Building Co. [***15] , Ohio Circuit Ct. 190.) In re Nat’l Commer. Bank & Trust Co., 257 A.D. 868, 869-870 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t 1939) citing Vincent v. Rix, supra v. Rix, supra; Bump v. Pratt, Hun, 201.
“the name of the trust as such name is designated in the instrument creating said trust property” could ever qualify as delivery to any particular securitization trust. Absent such registration, there would be nothing that would indicate which of thousands of trusts in the care of a trustee a particular promissory note might belong to or if it were the personal property of the This point was recently slammed home to the public consciousness in a watershed decision out of the State of Massachusetts. On January 7, 2011, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts—the highest court in that state—rendered a unanimous verdict in a case captioned U.S. Natl. Bank Assn., Trustee, v. Ibanez, For ABFC 20050PT 1 Trust, ABFC Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005-0PT 1, No. SJC-10694, (Mass. Jan. 7, 2011).
While that ruling may or may not be binding upon this case; it is very much contrary to the mortgage securitization industry’s position in cases involving the foreclosure of mortgage loans which have allegedly been securitized. The facts of the case in Massachusetts and the facts of this instant case are similar.
The case was a ruling on two consolidated cases – both cases were filed by banks (as trustees for two separate trusts) to quiet title on properties they had foreclosed and purchased at the foreclosure sale to satisfy the mortgagor’s debt.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that neither bank proved that its trust owned the mortgages when they foreclosed on the homes; therefore, neither had title to the foreclosed properties and that their foreclosures were void. Effectively, this put the borrowers back into the place they were before the foreclosure.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did not tell the homeowners they are allowed to shirk their obligation to pay their mortgages, which are still outstanding, valid obligations.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did, however, sharply instruct the banks that they must have the proper documentation which demonstrates a valid right to foreclose before a foreclosure can be carried out.
It is well worth noting the conclusion of the Massachusetts Ibanez opinion. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court noted that “The legal principles and requirements we set forth are well established in our case law and our statutes.
All that has changed is the [banks’] apparent failure to abide by those principles and requirements in the rush to sell mortgage-backed securities.” Just as the principles and requirements of Massachusetts law are well-founded, so too are those of New York law, and they should be upheld even if adherence to the law is inconvenient for banks rushing to sell mortgage-backed securities.
B-3 THE INTENT TO TRANSFER AN ASSET TO THE TRUST IS NOT A TRANSFER TO THE TRUST
The contents of these statutes, cases and contracts lead to one inescapable conclusion: the intent of the parties and the requirements of the contracts were that the assets be conveyed to the Trusts by the Trust closing dates.
For a transfer to any foreclosure industry has chosen to argue that it is clear that it was the parties’“intent” to transfer these assets and therefore “no court” would ever declare that these assets were not transferred to these trusts. The controlling law is overwhelmingly against the industry in this position. The failure to deliver the notes and mortgages to these trusts as required by the trust instruments is a default under the terms of every agreement that these parties executed, including their agreements for payment guarantees with the monoline bond insurers. The securitization industry chose to create its securitization trusts under New York law precisely because the law was ancient and settled.
Now that the actions of the foreclosure industry contradicts that law, parties such as the defendant trust are left to argue hope against precedent. The well-settled New York trust law provides that “A mere intention to make a gift which has not been carried into effect, confers no right upon the intended beneficiary.
There must be also delivery beyond the power of further control and dominion.” The foreclosure industry has chosen to argue that it is clear that it was the parties’“intent” to transfer these assets and therefore “no court” would ever declare that these assets were not transferred to these trusts.
The controlling law is overwhelmingly against the Movant`s in this position.
The failure to deliver the notes and mortgages to these trusts as required by the trust instruments is a default under the terms of every agreement that these parties executed, including their agreements for payment guarantees with the monoline bond insurers.
The securitization industry chose to create its securitization trusts under New York law precisely because the law was ancient and settled.
Now that the actions of the foreclosure industry contradicts that law, parties such as the Plaintiff trust are left to argue hope against precedent. The well-settled New York trust law provides that “A mere intention to make a gift which has not been carried into effect, confers no right upon the intended beneficiary. There must be also delivery beyond the power of further control and dominion.” Equity will not help out an incomplete delivery.
If the agent of the donor has failed to make the delivery expected equity will particular trust to be effective, there should have been a registration of the assets into “the name of the trust as such name is designated in the instrument creating said trust property”—this is the only method by which these assets could have been “divested from the possession and title” of the donors. In response to the lucidity of the controlling law on this issue, the mortgage (Vincent v. Rix, 248 N.Y. 76, 85 v. Rix, 248 N.Y. 76, 85; Matter of Green, 247 App. Div. 540; McCarthy v. Pieret, 281 N.Y. 407, 409.) as cited by In re FIRST TRUST & DEPOSIT CO., 264 A.D. 940, 941 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t 1942) not declare him a trustee for the donee. “Thus, Thornton on Gifts and Advancements (§140) notes: “In determining whether there has been a valid delivery, the situation of the subject of the gift must be considered.
If it is actually present, and capable of delivery without serious effort, it is not too much to say that there must be an actual delivery, although the donor need not in person or by agent hand the article to the donee, if the latter assumes the possession.” There was absolutely nothing in the physical nature of the papers to be delivered in this case, or in the physical condition or the surroundings of the donor, that made a symbolical delivery necessary of the thing given has been very largely relaxed, but a symbolical delivery is sufficient delivery as nearly perfect and complete as the circumstances will allow.
Some cases have confined the duties of the indenture trustee to those set forth in the indenture. From this context springs the seminal rule of law that effectively causes the parties to the Trust agreement and the Trust to be “gored by their own bull”.
New It is true that the old rule requiring an actual delivery only when the conditions are so adverse to actual delivery as to make a symbolical Further, the failure to convey to a trust per the controlling trust document is not a matter that may be cured by the breaching party. New York law is unflinchingly clear that a trustee has only the authority granted by the instrument under which he holds, either deed or will.
This fundamental rule has existed from the beginning and is still law. An indenture trustee is unlike the ordinary trustee. In contrast with the latter, Vincent v. Putnam, 248 N.Y. 76, 82-84 (N.Y. 1928) In re Van Alstyne, 207 N.Y. 298, 309-310 (N.Y. 1913).31 In re Van Alstyne, 207 N.Y. 298, 309-310 (N.Y. 1913). Allison & Ver Valen Co. v. McNee, 170 Misc. 144, 146 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1939). Ambac Indem. Corp. v. Bankers Trust Co., 151 Misc. 2d 334, 336 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1991).
Therefore, the trustees for these trusts may only acquire assets in the manner set forth in the trust Instrument and may not acquire assets in violation of the trust instrument.
To the extent that any assets were not conveyed to these trusts as required and when required by the trust instrument, they are not assets of the trusts and the trustee cannot correct this deficiency now since the funding period provided in the Trust instruments passed many years ago.
The attempts to acquire assets by these trusts which violate the terms of the Trust instrument are void.
Therefore, late assignments, improper chains of title, late endorsements, improper chains of title in the endorsements and the attempt to transfer to the trusts by foreclosure deed are just a number of the many examples of actions which are void if taken by a party to the indenture who is attempting to transfer property to the Trustee for the Trust in violation of the trust instrument.
C. THE TRUST NEVER PROPERLY ACQUIRED THE MORTGAGE NOTE AND THE TRUST CANNOT CURE ITS FATAL STANDING DEFECT
Therefore, the trustees for these trusts may only acquire assets in the manner set forth in the trust instrument and may not acquire assets in violation of the trust instrument.
To the extent that any assets were not conveyed to these trusts as required and when required by the trust instrument, they are not assets of the trusts and the trustee cannot correct this deficiency now since the funding period provided in the Trust instruments passed many years ago.
The attempt to acquire assets by these trusts which violate the terms of the Trust instrument are void. Therefore, late assignments, improper chains of title, late endorsements, improper chains of title in the endorsements and the attempt to transfer to the trusts by foreclosure deed are just a number of the many examples of actions which are void if taken by a party to the indenture who is attempting to transfer property to the Trustee for the Trust in violation of the trust instrument.
C. THE TRUST NEVER PROPERLY ACQUIRED THE MORTGAGE NOTE AND THE TRUST CANNOT CURE ITS FATAL STANDING DEFECT
York’s law is so well-settled regarding the limitations of a trustee’s power to act that New York’s Estates Powers and Trust Law Section 7-2.4 states: § 7-2.4 Act of trustee in contravention of trust If the trust is expressed in the instrument creating the estate of the trustee, every sale, conveyance or other act of the trustee in contravention of the trust, except as authorized by this article and by any other provision of law, is void.
Under New York law there is no trust over property that has not been properly transferred to a trust. The Defendant Trust stated to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in filings under oath that it has assets in excess of $400 million.
To acquire assets, the Trust must be funded in accordance with the requirements of the PSA/Trust documents. The pertinent terms of the agreement are found at §2.01 (Conveyance of Trust Fund) of the PSA. This section details how the mortgage notes in the instant case were transferred from Bank of America NA. (as Originator) to ” U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” .
The Subject note is in Blank and is not made out to the name of the Movant. U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” Bank of America NA, is the alleged mortgage holder as indicated on the note. “Pay to the order of U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” does not have the authority to get the lift of STAY, there is no “showing” of an unbroken chain of endorsements in the documents provided to the Debtor. “According to the requirements set forth in the Trust Agreement.
A series of endorsements of the promissory note reflective of each party who had an interest in the promissory note culminating with a blank endorsement from the depositor at the very minimum.”
The Trust never possessed the mortgage note per the terms of the PSA (Pooling and Service Agreement). Further, in the PSA’s exhibits, Exhibit One sets forth the contents of the collateral file for each mortgage loan that is trust property and further includes a final specific endorsement to the Trustee for the specific trust in this case to effect a final transfer to the Trust and to make the subject note trust property. Any attempt by ” U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” Bank of America NA, to transfer the promissory note to the Trust at this late date would fail for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that the closing date of August 30, 2007 passed nearly 6 years ago.
By the terms of the Trust and the applicable provision of the Internal Revenue Code incorporated into and a part of the Trust agreement, the promissory note cannot be transferred to the Trust. The Trust has never owned the subject promissory note and the Trust can never own the subject promissory note.
Trust has not provided documentation to show that it was or is entitled to the money secured by the mortgage of subject property. “U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” has offered no verifiable proof of ownership.
End ……
whole trust at link
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/934377/000137940207000041/form424b5.txt
Prospectus at link
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/934377/000137940207000043/ex4_1.txt
Pooling and Servicing agreement at link
******************************************
fùguó yínháng, tōng yínháng,
zuòwéi zhǔ fúwù shāng hé zhèngquàn guǎnlǐ yuán,
hé
měiguó yínháng quánguó xiéhuì
zuòwéi shòutuō rén
gòngtóng shǐyòng jí fúwù xiéyì
rìqí wèi 2007 nián 8 yuè 30 rì
ànjiē zhítōng zhèngshū
xìliè 2007-7
shàng Mtge qìjù hào: 668409245
Xìntuō de míngchēng: Měiguó 2007-7 zījīn xìntuō yín zhèngquàn
jù chēng yuán dàikuǎn rén de xìngmíng; měiguó yínháng bùshìyòng.
Jiézhǐ rìqí: 2007 Nián 8 yuè sānshí rì huò yuē
jiézhǐ rìqí: 2007 Nián 8 yuè 1 rì
bàogào shǒuxiān yīgè
zhāilù zhǔtǐ de dàikuǎn róngzī hé fúwù xiéyì de dì èr tiáo. Gāi liànjiē hái tígōng yǐ gōng cānkǎo. Zài lìyì fāng, qíshí shì “zhīfù gěi měiguó yínháng quánguó xiéhuì de shùnxù, rú shòutuō rénwéi měiguó róngzī gōngsī ànjiē zhítōng zhèngshū, xìliè 2007-7, wú zhuī suǒ quán de yín zhèngquàn de chí yǒu rén, ” hé jì hé dǐyā bìxū zài gāi míngchēng yǔ bèishū shì zhèngquè de. Zài zhè zhǒng qíngkuàng xià, zhídé zhùyì de shì zài kòngbái hé měiguó yínháng de míngchēng
shì yīnfú kě zhuǎnràng piàojù huò bùkě zhuǎnràng piàojù?
Dì èr tiáo
CONVEYANCE ànjiē dàikuǎn;
zhèngshū de yuán qiānfā
http://Www.Sec.Gov/Archives/edgar/data/934377/000137940207000043/ex4_1.Txt
dì 2.01 Shūsòng ànjiē dàikuǎn.
(Yī) cúnkuǎn rén, tóngshí yǔ qiān lì jí jiāofù běn xiéyì, tècǐ chūshòu, zhuǎnràng, fēnpèi, shèzhì jiéshù, fǒuzé chuándá gěi shòutuō rén dàibiǎo běn xìntuō wèi Certificateholders de lìyì, wú zhuī suǒ quán, suǒyǒu quánlì, suǒyǒuquán jí bìng yú-49 cúnkuǎn rén de lìyì –
yīgè <page>
ànjiē dàikuǎn jí xiāngguān dǐyā wénjiàn, bāokuò suǒyǒu de lìxí hé běn jīn shōu dào huò jiù ànjiē dàikuǎn yǔ cúnkuǎn de quánlì (bù zhīfù běn jīn jí lìxí, bìng zài dǐyā dàikuǎn shàng huò zài jiézhǐ rìqí zhīqián zhīfù qítā) xià BANA fúwù xiéyì jí gēnjù ànjiē dàikuǎn gòumǎi xiéyì, bāokuò cúnkuǎn, zuòwéi jiù underthe fúwù xiéyì (bù bāokuò BANA fúwù xiéyì chúwài) jí xiāngguān xiāoshòu xiéyì bǎojiàn rén de quánlì bǎojiàn rén shòu ràng rén de quánlì.
(B) zài gāi děng zhuǎnràng jí chūràng fāngmiàn, jìcún rén jiāofù huò cùshǐ jiāofù gěi shòutuō rén, huò dàibiǎo shòutuō rén de tuōguǎn rén, wèi Certificateholders, xiàliè wénjiàn huò wénshū jiù měi zōng ànjiē de hǎochù dàikuǎn rúcǐ fēnpèi:
(I) yuán ànjiē zhùyì, zài xiàmiàn de biǎogé zàntóng shǒudòng huò chuánzhēn qiānshǔ: “Zhīfù gěi měiguó yínháng quánguó xiéhuì de shùnxù, rú shòutuō rénwéi měiguó róngzī gōngsī ànjiē zhítōng zhèngshū, xìliè 2007-7 yín zhèngquàn de chí yǒu rén, wú zhuī suǒ quán “, yǔ suǒyǒu bìyào de gānyù dàiyán dàiyán xiǎnshì cóng fāduān yīgè wánzhěng de liàntiáo, yǐ shòutuō rén (měi yīgè zhèyàng de dàiyán zúyǐ zhuǎnràng fāng de suǒyǒu quánlì, suǒyǒuquán hé lìyì de rènkě, zuòwéi piàojù chí yǒu rén huò shòu ràng rénwù, bìng gāi ànjiē zhù), qiě zài rènhé ànjiē dàikuǎn de qíngkuàng xià, qǐyuán yú niǔyuē de yīgè NYCEMA de NYCEMA, xīn de dǐyā dàikuǎn piàojù (rú shìyòng), zònghé dǐyā dàikuǎn piàojù jí zònghé ànjiē jìlù de guójiā;
zhèngquàn huà xìntuō
mòrèn de tōngzhī biǎomíng, yuánlái de zhàiquánrén shì měiguó yínháng, NA shàng Movant de míngchēng shì zài pǔtōng fǎ xìntuō de míngchēng. Xìntuō shì tōngguò yīgè gòngtóng shǐyòng jí fúwù xiéyì ( “PSA” ) chuàngzàole yīgè niǔyuē pǔtōng fǎ de xìnrèn. Gēnjù PSA, dàikuǎn jù chēng huìjí chéng yīgè xìnrèn bìng zhuǎnhuàn chéng dǐyā dàikuǎn zhīchí zhèngquàn. Zài PSA tígōngle yīgè jiézhǐ rìqí 2007 nián 8 yuè 30 rì, běn xìntuō. Yóuyú zài liè rúxià, zhè shì bèi yāoqiú zài qí suǒyǒu zīchǎn cún rù xìntuō de rìqí. PSA de guīdìng, niǔyuē zhōu fǎlǜ guǎnxiá shōugòu ànjiē zīchǎn xìntuō.
Xìntuō shì zuòwéiyīgè REMIC xìnrèn. Gēnjù guónèi shuìshōu fǎdiǎn ( “IRC” ) de REMIC guīdìng xìntuō de jiézhǐ rìqí yěshì qǐdòng rì de xìntuō. Jiézhǐ rìqí/qǐdòng yītiān shì xiǎnzhù de, yīn wéi xìntuō jījīn de suǒyǒu zīchǎn dōu bèi zhuǎnyí dào xìntuō huò zhīqián jiézhǐ rìqí, yǐ quèbǎo xìntuō shōu dàole REMIC zhuàngtài.
Zài IRC tígōng de xiāngguān bùfèn zhǐchū:“Chú dì 860G (sì) tígōng (2 ), ‘rúguǒ rènhé shù’é de qǐdòng yītiānhòu cùchéngle REMIC, zī zhēngshōu shuì xiàng REMIC zhōng de nàshuì niándù tā de gòngxiàn bèi jiēshōu děngyú 100%de zhè zhǒng gòngxiàn liàng. “26 USC§ 860G (D) (1 ).
Xìnrèn de jìnxíng jiāoyì de nénglì bèi xiànzhì zài shòuquán qí xìntuō wénjiàn de cāozuò.
Fáng zhǔ chēng, zài zhèlǐ, xìntuō wénjiàn zhǐ yǔnxǔ yīgè tèdìng zhuǎnyí dào xìntuō de fāngfǎ, zài yú PSA de§ 2.01. 6 2.01 Jié guīdìng de cúnkuǎn rén tígōng shòutuō rén yǔ yuán ànjiē piàojù, kòngbái bèishū huòzhě bèishū rúxià: Měiguó yínháng quánguó xiéhuì, zuòwéi shòutuō rén de yín zhèngquàn chí yǒu rén měiguó róngzī gōngsī ànjiē zhítōng zhèngshū,2007 xìliè – 7, wú zhuī suǒ quán “, gēnjù shìyòng de xiéyì, wú zhuī suǒ quán. ” Suǒyǒu de shìxiān gānyù dàiyán bìxū chūshì dàiyán de yīgè wánzhěng de liàntiáo cóng fāduān dào shòutuō rén.
Gēnjù niǔyuē dìchǎn dàguó hé xìntuō fǎ§ 7-2.1 (Sān), shǔxìng bìxū zài shòutuō rén de míngyì dēngjì, yǐbiàn zhuǎnyí dào shòutuō rén de tèdìng xìnrèn shì yǒuxiào de.
1 Guónèi shuìshōu fǎdiǎn guīdìng, shùyǔ “fángdìchǎn dǐyā dàikuǎn tóuzī guǎndào” hé “REMIC” shì zhǐ rènhé shítǐ (1) dào bèi shì wéi yīgè REMIC xuǎnjǔ shìyòng yú gāi kè shuì niándù jí zhīqián suǒyǒu nàshuì niándù, (2 ) suǒyǒu, qízhōng yǒu pǔtōng quányì huò shèngyú quányì de lìyì, (3 ), yǐ yú 1 (zhǐyǒu 1) bān de shèngyú quányì (yǐjí suǒyǒu fèn pài (rú yǒu), duìyú zhèyàng de lìyì shì àn bǐlì), (4 ) zuòwéi qǐdòng rì jí yǐhòu zài rènhé shíhòu dōu jiējìn dì 3 gè yuè, zì cǐhòu, qízhōng jué dà bùfèn yóu hégé de dǐyā dàikuǎn hé huòzhǔn tóuzī de zīchǎn. Xìntuō cáichǎn bùnéng jǔxíng yǔ bù wánzhěng de dàiyán hé fēnpèi bù xiǎnshì gāi wùyè yǐ xìntuō xíngshì chí yǒu yóu shòutuō rén zhǐdìng shòuyì rén de xìnrèn.
Fáng zhǔ chēng, zhè yī quēxiàn yìwèizhe, měiguó yínháng quánguó xiéhuì, zuòwéi shòutuō rén de yín zhèngquàn chí yǒu rén měiguó róngzī gōngsī ànjiē zhítōng zhèngshū, xìliè 2007-7, wú zhuī suǒ quán “ , ér měiguó yínháng shì wúxiào de piàojù chí yǒu rén.
Yī, zì biànliàng
A. Yuángào xìntuō yǐ méiyǒu zīgé lái qǔxiāo dǐyā pǐn shú huí quán yīn wéi yīzhí méiyǒu yǒuxiào de kě zhíxíng de fēnpèi jǐ xìntuō de shòutuō rén
A- 1.
Yuángào xìntuō de guǎn zhì yóu yīgè niǔyuē pǔtōng fǎ xìntuō
niǔyuē fǎlǜ jīyú qí xìntuō xiéyì. Měiguó yínháng quánguó xiéhuì, zuòwéi shòutuō rénwéi měiguó róngzī gōngsī ànjiē zhítōng zhèngshū, xìliè 2007-7, wú zhuī suǒ quán de yín zhèngquàn de chí yǒu rén, “zhè zhǒng xìnrèn shì bùshì zhège dàikuǎn hé míngchēng de bízǔ shì bùshì jiù shuōmíng, zhè zhǒng xìnrèn shì shènzhì méiyǒu yījiā yínháng, yínháng shì qí shòutuō rén, ér gāi shítǐ shì bùshì fángdài, fúwù shāng, shènzhì shì yínháng de bízǔ.
Xiāngfǎn, zhège shítǐ shì yóu bèi chēng wéi yī xiàng xiéyì, jiànlìle niǔyuē pǔtōng fǎ xìnrèn “chí jí fúwù xiéyì”. Jù chēng, zhàiwùrén dān qū zhùfáng dàikuǎn, yǐjí qítā dàikuǎn, huìjí chéng yīgè xìnrèn bìng zhuǎnhuàn chéng dǐyā dàikuǎn zhīchí zhèngquàn ( “MBS” ), kěyǐ gòumǎi hé chūshòu tóuzī – bèi chēng wèi zhèngquàn huà de guòchéng. Běn xìntuō suǒ chí yǒu de měi yīgè dǐyā dàikuǎn de jīběn chéngduì piàojù zuòwéi wèi tóuzī zhě dài lái qiánzài de shōurù láiyuán.
Xìntuō shèxián chí yǒu yuángào de piàojù yú huò yuē 2007 nián 8 yuè 1 rì chuàngjiàn de, bìngqiě bèi biāozhì wèi “měiguó yínháng quánguó xiéhuì, zuòwéi shòutuō rén de yín zhèngquàn chí yǒu rén měiguó róngzī gōngsī ànjiē zhítōng zhèngshū, xìliè 2007-7, wú zhuī suǒ quán “,” zhōng.
Xìntuō, qí tiáokuǎn, shèzhì de xìntuō jījīn de tiáokuǎn bāohán zài huìjí hé fúwù xiéyì yīgè “jiézhǐ rìqí”2007 niándù 8 yuè 30 rì ( “PSA” huò “xìntuō xiéyì” ), zhè shì yīgè dàyuē 400 yè chuàngjiàn xìnrènhé dìngyì de quánlì, yìwù hé dāngshìrén de zérèn xìntuō xiéyì wénjiàn.
PSA shì tíjiāo xià shìyán yǔ měiguó zhèngquàn jiāoyì wěiyuánhuì, bìng liánjiē dào zuòwéi yīgè túbiǎo 1.
Zài PSA hái cǎiyòng cānzhào yīgè míng wèi dǐyā dàikuǎn gòumǎi xiéyì ( “fángzhǐ xǐqián fǎ” ), dāndú de wéndàng. Zhèxiē bùtóng de wénjiàn, yīncǐ, shōugòu xìntuō, tōngguò qí xìntuō rén bèi qǐsù, shì yījiā zhìlì yú chōngdāng “qúdào’xìntuō (dìngyì jiàn xiàwén) gēnjù měiguó guónèi shōurù fǎdiǎn ( ” IRC “ ) niǔyuē qǐyè xìnrèn. Gēnjù fǎguī suǒ cǎiyòng, bìng nàrù xìntuō de “jiézhǐ rìqí” de xìntuō jījīn (2007 nián 8 yuè 30 rì) de tiáokuǎn, xìntuō jí shìyòng guóshuì jú ( “IRS” ) de tiáokuǎn yěshì “qǐdòng rì” gēnjù IRC de REMIC guīdìng de xìntuō jījīn.
Qǐdòng rì shì xiǎnzhù, yīnwèi zài IRC bǎng zài qí shàng REMIC xìnrènkě jiēshōu qí zīchǎn, yǐ zhège rìqí de xiànzhì. Zài IRC de xún zhǐ REMIC de dìngyì de xiāngguān bùfèn: Xìntuō de dǐyā dàikuǎn zīchǎn, zài niǔyuē gēnjù PSA de dì 11.03 Guó de fǎlǜ guǎnxiá.
(Yī) yībān guīzé. Wèile zhège chēnghào, shùyǔ “fángdìchǎn dǐyā
tóuzī dǎoguǎn hé’ REMIC “shì zhǐ rènhé shítǐ (1) dào bèi shì wéi yīgè REMIC xuǎnjǔ shìyòng yú gāi kè shuì niándù jí zhīqián suǒyǒu nàshuì niándù, (2) suǒyǒu zài qízhōng de pǔtōng quányì huò shèngyú quányì de lìyì, (3 ), qízhōng yǒu 1 (zhǐyǒu 1) bān de shèngyú quányì (yǐjí suǒyǒu fèn pài (rú yǒu), duìyú zhèyàng de lìyì shì àn bǐlì), (4 ) zuòwéi jiéshù 3 gè yuè de qǐdòng rì zhīhòu, bìng zài kāishǐ suǒyǒu shíjiān, qízhōng jué dà bùfèn de zīchǎn bāokuò hégé
dǐyā dàikuǎn hé xǔkě investments.26 U.S.C.S. § 860D (qiángdiào).
Jù qīngcháng de zérènhé shòutuō rén de quánlì yóu xìntuō xiéyì de tiáokuǎn dìngyì, bìngqiě zhǐ néng yóu zhōngchéng shòuyì rén de xìntuō yìwù huí huǒ (jiàn, měiguó xìntuō yǒuxiàn gōngsī v dì yī chéng quánguó xìng yínháng, 57 AD2D 285, 295-296, aff’d 45 NY2d 869; xìntuō fǎ chóng shù [èr]§ 186, pínglùn A,D). Kàn zài chóngxīn rìběn xìngyè shī luō dé yínháng jí xìntuō yǒuxiàn gōngsī 271 AD2D 322 (niǔyuē zhōu yìngyòng. Xī. Dì yī dá dào 2000).
26 Měiguó fǎdiǎn 860G (D) (2) tiáo guīdìng:
(A) rènhé gòngxiàn, yǐ fāngbiàn qīnglǐ de hūjiào (rú guīzhāng dìngyì) huò hégé de qīngsuàn.
(B) rènhé fùkuǎn dānbǎo dì xìngzhì.
(C) rènhé qíjiān kāishǐ qǐdòng rì de 3 gè yuè qíjiān de gòngxiàn.
(D) rènhé yóu yīgè shèngyú de rènhé chí yǒu rén yǒu zīgé de chúbèi jījīn gōng kuǎn
xìngqù zài REMIC.
(Wǔ) zài fǎguī xǔkě de qítā gòngxiàn.
Zài PSA (zhǔyào zài dì 9.12) Tōngguò yāoqiú gè fāng xìnrèn, yǐ bìmiǎn kěnéng wéijí rènhé REMIC de shuìwù zhuàngkuàng jí/huò běn xìntuō zhēngshōu rènhé shuì, jìnzhǐ juānkuǎn huò shòu jìn jiāoyì de rènhé xíngdòng jiějuéle IRC de zhèxiē bùfèn.
Zhèxiē PSA de guīdìng shì yīnwèi niǔyuē xìntuō fǎ, zài IRC de REMIC de guīdìng, hé PSA chénglì wèi fǎ tuán de IRC REMIC guīdìng zhī jiān de xiānghù zuòyòng zhòngyào de shì zài zhè zhǒng qíngkuàng xià, shìshí de fēnxī.
A- 2.
Xìntuō wénshū/ PSA fú sī shèzhì yīgè tèdìng de shíjiān, fāngfǎ hé fāngshì REMIC qǐdòng yītiān zhīhòu, zī qiángjiā zài qízhōng de gòngxiàn shōu dào děngyú 100%de zhè zhǒng gòngxiàn liàng de shuì xiàng REMIC de nàshuì niándù “26 USC 860G (D) (2) tiáo guīdìng:
(2 ) Lìwài. Dì (1) kuǎn bìng bùshìyòng yú tā shì yóu xiànjīn hé rènhé xiàliè gè kuǎn zhōng miáoshù de rènhé gòngxiàn:
(A) rènhé gòngxiàn, yǐ fāngbiàn qīnglǐ de hūjiào (rú guīzhāng dìngyì) huò hégé de qīngsuàn.
(B) rènhé fùkuǎn dānbǎo dì xìngzhì. Qíjiān kāishǐ qǐdòng rì de 3 gè yuè nèi (C) rènhé gòngxiàn.
(Sì) tōngguò zài REMIC de shèngyú quányì de chí yǒu rén yǒu zīgé de chúbèi jījīn de rènhé gòngxiàn.
(Wǔ) zài fǎguī xǔkě de qítā gòngxiàn. Zài PSA (zhǔyào zài dì 9.12) Tōngguò yāoqiú gè fāng xìnrèn, yǐ bìmiǎn kěnéng wéijí rènhé REMIC de shuìwù zhuàngkuàng jí/huò běn xìntuō zhēngshōu rènhé shuì, jìnzhǐ juānkuǎn huò shòu jìn jiāoyì de rènhé xíngdòng jiějuéle IRC de zhèxiē bùfèn.
Zhèxiē PSA de guīdìng shì yīnwèi niǔyuē xìntuō fǎ, zài IRC de REMIC de guīdìng, hé PSA chénglì wèi fǎ tuán de IRC REMIC guīdìng zhī jiān de xiānghù zuòyòng zhòngyào de shì zài zhè zhǒng qíngkuàng xià de shìshí, fǎyuàn de fēnxī.
Xìntuō wénshū/ PSA tíchūle yīgè jùtǐ de shíjiān, fāngfǎ de IRC hé fāngshì hái tígōngle jìnzhǐ jiāoyì de dìngyì hé jìnzhǐ de gòngxiàn zhè shì yǒuguān zhè zhǒng qíngkuàng xià yěshì rúcǐ. Zài zhè zhǒng qíngkuàng xià de bèijǐng xià, xiāngguān fǎguī shì jìnzhǐ de gòngxiàn shì rúxià de dìngyì:
26 Měiguó fǎdiǎn 860G (D) (1 ) guīdìng:
Chúle dì 860G (sì) tígōng (2 ), “rúguǒ rènhé jīn’é cùchéngle zījīn de xìntuō.
Xìntuō xúnqiú qǔxiāo dǐyā pǐn shú huí quán de zhàiwùrén yǐ zài qí xìntuō xiéyì (PSA) xìntuō yǔ zīchǎn zījīn de jùtǐ shíjiān, fāngfǎ hé fāngshì de tiáokuǎn.
Zuì guānjiàn de shíjiān shì xìntuō de jiézhǐ rìqí 2007 nián 8 yuè 30 rì, gēnjù PSA de tiáokuǎn, suǒyǒu de xìntuō zīchǎn bìng zhuǎn rù xìntuō huò zhīqián jiézhǐ rìqí.
Zhè xiàng guīdìng shì wèi quèbǎo xìntuō jiāng shōuqǔ REMIC zhuàngtài, yīncǐ miǎn jiǎo liánbāng suǒdéshuì. 2.02 Jié PSA de (a) xiàng guīdìng de 90 tiān de chuāngkǒu xìntuō jiézhǐ rìqí zài běn xìntuō kě wánchéng rènhé dān zhèng quēshī huò wánchéng yào wánchéng zīchǎn yóu cúnkuǎn rén zhuàn yí dào rènhé wénjiàn hòu,
xìntuō.
B. Xìntuō xiéyì tígōngle wéi yī de fāngshì, zhè zīchǎn huì bèi zhèngquè dì chuánsòng de xìnrènhé rènhé xíngwéi wéifǎnle xìntuō xiéyì shǔ wúxiào
yīncǐ, chéngwéi xìntuō zīchǎn de zīchǎn bìxū yǐ zhuǎnyí zhì xìntuō zài yú PSA de shíjiān nèi. Zài shíjiān zhóu yāoqiú éwài de 90 tiān cóng IRC de REMIC guīdìng zhùcè chénglì, yǐ tígōng yīgè “qīnglǐ qíxiàn” de REMIC wánchéng qǐdòng rì (zhè yěshì yǐhòu yǔ zīchǎn de REMIC zhuǎnràng xiāngguān de wénjiàn xìntuō jiézhǐ rìqí). Yīncǐ, gēnjù zài cǐ qíngkuàng xià, xìntuō xiéyì de píngyuán shàng, zài jiézhǐ rìqí/qǐdòng rìqí wèi 2007 nián 8 yuè 30 rì hé zhuǎnyí zīchǎn zhùrù xìntuō de zuìhòu yī tiān shì 2007 nián 8 yuè 30 rì.
B-1.
Zīchǎn zhuǎnràng xìntuō gēnjù xìntuō yíqì/ PSA zuòwéi yīgè tōngyòng de shì, yěyǒu tōngguò gāi xìntuō de xiāngguān zīchǎn, tèbié shì gèrén de chéngduì piàojù, kěnéng huì bèi zhuǎnyí huò yùnshū de jǐ zhǒng fāngfǎ. Xìnrèn de jìnxíng jiāoyì de nénglì bèi xiànzhì zài shòuquán qí xìntuō wénjiàn de cāozuò. Zài zhè zhǒng qíngkuàng xià, xìntuō wénjiàn zhǐ yǔnxǔ yīgè tèdìng zhuǎnyí dào xìntuō de fāngfǎ. Gāi fāngfǎ zài yú PSA de 2.01 Jié: Liànjiē dào PSA
http://Www.Sec.Gov/Archives/edgar/data/934377/000137940207000043/ex4_1.Txt
zhège rìqí shì zài zài biǎoxiàn chū 1 397 25 yè zhōng dìngyì de xìntuō wénshū zhè yī yāoqiú pī fà xiàn zài 2.01 Jié;
“gēnjù ànjiē dàikuǎn gòumǎi xiéyì, chūshòu gè màifāng, zhuǎnràng, fēnpèi, shèzhì jiéshù, fǒuzé zhuǎndá gěi cúnkuǎn rén, wú zhuī suǒ quán, suǒyǒu quánlì, suǒyǒuquán jí gāi děng màifāng bìng tōngguò qí xìntuō chūshòu di zīchǎn zhōng de quányì jījīn…. Zài zhèyàng de xiāoshòu fāngmiàn, jìcún rén jiāofù gěi, bìng cúnfàng, shòutuō rén huò bǎoguǎn rén, zuòwéi qí dàilǐ rén, yǐxià wénjiàn huò wénshū jiù měi zōng ànjiē dàikuǎn rúcǐ fēnpèi: (I) yuán ànjiē zhùyì shìxiàng, bāokuò rènhé chē yǒu tóupiào zhě, bù bèishū kòngbái zhuī suǒ quán (A) huò měiguó yínháng quánguó xiéhuì de shùnxù, zuòwéi shòutuō rén de yín zhèngquàn chí yǒu rén měiguó róngzī gōngsī ànjiē zhítōng zhèngshū, xìliè 2007-7, wú zhuī suǒ quán “de”
(běn cì zhuǎnràng yǔyán de fēnxī xūyào yīgè kǎolǜ shàngshù duànluò de měi yībùfèn, zài zhè yīduàn de xìntuō xiéyì zhōng de yǔyán, dì yī tiáo yǔjù shì chuánshū zhī yī, zhǐchū “cúnkuǎn rén yǐ jiāofù bìng cúnfàng yú shòutuō rén huò tuōguǎn rén yǐxià
wénjiàn “ . Guānjiàn wénjiàn shì yuánshǐ dǐyā zhùyì, zhè xūyào zài zhège yǔyán zhōng qiángzhì dàiyán: “Yuánlái de dǐyā dàikuǎn piàojù bèishū…. Wú zhuī suǒ quán” hòu jiē de cuòcí zhōng de rèn yī/huò géshì de liǎng gè bèi xuǎn fāng’àn. Dì yīgè biāo yǒu “A” de guójiā měiguó de “kòngbái huò zhìxù” yínháng quánguó xiéhuì, zuòwéi shòutuō rén de yín zhèngquàn chí yǒu rén měiguó róngzī gōngsī ànjiē zhítōng zhèngshū, xìliè 2007-7, wú zhuī suǒ quán de, “
duīdié hòu de dàiyán liàn bù zhòng duàn de zhè yī yāoqiú shì dǐngjí de dǐyā wénjiàn de zuìzhōng nèiróng rènzhèng de xìntuō lìyì de yāoqiú.
Zhè yī yāoqiú shì zài biǎo 1 de fángzhǐ xǐqián fǎ (ànjiēdàikuǎn gòumǎi xiéyì), zhè shì yīgè fùjiàn, bìng jiéhé rú dì 2.01 PSA de yīgè zǔchéng bùfèn zhǎodào.
Duìyú měi yīgè dǐyā dàikuǎn, dǐyā dàikuǎn wénjiàn yīng bāokuò yǐxià gè xiàngmù, xū gōng mǎifāng cháyuè huò qí zhǐdìng, bìng xū sòng jiāo gēnjù běn xiéyì de tiáokuǎn xiàng mǎifāng huò qí zhǐdìng. (Yī) yuán ànjiē zhùyì shìxiàng, bāokuò rènhé chēshǒu tóupiào zhě, tōngguò wú zhuī suǒ quán de “ ” zhīfù gěi měiguó yínháng quánguó xiéhuì de shùnxù, zuòwéi shòutuō rén de yín zhèngquàn chí yǒu rén měiguó róngzī gōngsī ànjiē zhítōng zhèngshū,2007 xìliè de shùnxù-7, wú zhuī suǒ quán, “ , ”, bìng xiǎnshì kěyòng de xiāngguān ànjiē dàikuǎn màifāng dàiyán cóng yuánlái de shōu kuǎn rén jí qí duì rén yě zàntóng shòutuō rén liàn bù zhòng duàn de chéngdù;
shàngshù guīdìng qīngchǔ biǎomíng, tóngshí gè fāng duì zhèngquàn zuòchū guīdìng, jí chéngduì piàojù duìběn xìntuō kěnéng huì zài kòngbái jiāofù gěi shòutuō rén; yǒu liǎng gè yāoqiú, nà shì qiángzhì xìng de. Shǒuxiān, yāoqiú chūshòu gěi xìntuō suǒyǒu yīnfú
yǒu dàiyán de yīgè wánzhěng de liàntiáo cóng yuánlái de shōu kuǎn rén tā rèn kě shòutuō rén de rén.
Cóng zhèngquàn huà, tèdìng de qǐyè guānzhù zhè yī yāoqiú yuán yú jí zhèngjù yǒu, shíjì shang shì yīgè “zhēnshí chūshòu” de zhèngquàn huà zīchǎn, tāmen shì zài méiyǒu bànfǎ de bízǔ, bǎojiàn rén huò cúnkuǎn rén réngrán cáichǎn, yīn’ér bù shòu wèi fāduān, zànzhù, huò cúnkuǎn rén de zhàiquánrén de zhàiquán. Qícì, shì zuìzhōng, zài xìntuō jiézhǐ rìqí hòu de 90 tiānnèi, shíjì běn piào bìxū bèishū gěi shòutuō rén de zhuānxiàng xìntuō de zīchǎn yǒuxiào dì zhuàn yí dào xìnrèn, yīncǐ shǐ zhǔtǐ chéngduì piàojù xìntuō cáichǎn de yāoqiú.
Zhè yāoqiú fāxiàn zhīchí luójí héfǎlǜ, shìshí shàng, niǔyuē zài zhège wèntí shàng de gǔlǎo hé jiésuàn de fǎlǜ.
B-2.
Niǔyuē zhōu fǎlǜ guǎnxiá de qiángzhì xìng yāoqiú, yǒuxiào dì zhuàn yí le zīchǎn zhuǎnyí zhì yīgè xìntuō zhè shì méiyǒu zhēngyì de zhèngquàn huà xìntuō, rú bèigào, xū dào niǔyuē de pǔtōng fǎ. Chuándá gěi tā, – de – tāmen jiāng bùdé bù jiànlì zìjǐ de suǒyǒuquán, yīn tóuzī zhě zài dǐyā pǐn de quánlì. Qícì, shì zuìzhōng, zài xìntuō jiézhǐ rìqí hòu de 90 tiānnèi, shíjì běn piào bìxū bèishū gěi shòutuō rén de zhuānxiàng xìntuō de yāoqiú
zīchǎn yǒuxiào dì zhuàn yí dào xìnrèn, yīncǐ shǐ sunject chéngduì piàojù xìntuō cáichǎn. Zhè yāoqiú fāxiàn zhīchí luójí héfǎlǜ, shìshí shàng, niǔyuē zài zhège wèntí shàng de gǔlǎo hé jiésuàn de fǎlǜ.
.
B-3. Niǔyuē zhōu fǎlǜ guǎnxiá de qiángzhì xìng yāoqiú yǒuxiào dì chuándì
yīgè zīchǎn zhuǎnyí zhì yīgè xìntuō zhè shì méiyǒu zhēngyì de zhèngquàn huà xìntuō, rú bèigào, xū dào niǔyuē de pǔtōng fǎ. Niǔyuē de xìntuō fǎ shì gǔdài hé jiějué.
Niǔyuē xìntuō fǎ lǐngyù yǒu jǐ gè yuánzé shì, yǐ rènhé tèdìng de zīchǎn shìfǒu wèi gěi dìng xìnrèn de zīchǎn de fēnxī yóuwéi zhòngyào.
Gēnjù niǔyuē fǎlǜ, yī xiàng zīchǎn shìfǒu shì xìntuō cáichǎn de fēnxī shì gēnjù lǐpǐn de fǎlǜ juédìng. Wèile yǒu yīgè yǒuxiào de shēngqián zèngyǔ, bìxū yǒu yīgè jiāofù de lǐwù (zǎo zài 1935 nián, zài bó gē yīn sù zhānmǔsī, 282 NYS 18, 21 (1935), niǔyuē zuìgāo fǎyuàn rènwéi shāngyè xìntuō, yě chēng wèi wèi “ ” mǎ sà zhū sè xìntuō “ , bèi rènwéi shì pǔtōng fǎ de xìntuō. Yě kàn dàole chóngxīn fángdìchǎn pǔ luò tè jīn de, 290 NYS2d 46, 49 (niǔyuē zhōu sū ěr 1968) (biǎozhēng pǔtōng gǔ xìntuō jījīn wèi” “pǔtōng fǎ de xìnrèn [S] “”), qítā sīfǎ guǎnxiá qū shìfǒu xiāngfú. Jiàn, lìrú, méi fēi’ěrdé sù chá tǎ nǔ jiā de dì yī “yínháng quánguó xìng, 137 F.2D 1013(dì liù xúnhuí 1943) (shìyòng pǔtōng fǎ de xìnrèn yuánzé de dǐyā cānyù zhèngshū chí chí yǒu rén).
Zài xìntuō nà li yǒu yīgè shòutuō rén bùshì bǎo rén qítā de qíngkuàng xià, zhuǎnràng jiāng tōngguò xiàn yǒu de guīzé guǎnxiá de yìxiàng hé jiāofù (de lǐwù de yuánsù) “ ” zài chóngxīn bèikè ěr,2004 niǔyuē zhōu huá yùn. 51773U, 4 (N.Y. Sur. Kèlā,2004 nián). Lǐwù de zhǔtí jìnxíng shíwù jiāo shōu) huò tuīdìng huò xiàngzhēng xìng jiāo huò (rú yǐ kuìzèng de gōngjù) zúgòu bōlí tǒngzhì hé duì fángdìchǎn tiáokòng de juānzhù zhě hé “shénme shì zúyǐ gòuchéng jiāo huò’bìxū dìngzhì, yǐ mǎnzú ànjiàn’de qíngkuàng “ .
Chuánsòng guīzé guīdìng, “'[zhōng] yào wánshàn yīgè sòng lǐwù bìxū shì wánměi de, yīnwèi gāi wùyè dì xìngzhì hé dāngshìrén de qíngkuàng hé zhōuwéi huánjìng huì hélǐ de yǔnxǔ’.” “Gēnjù niǔyuē zhōu de fǎlǜ yǒu sì gè jīběn yàosù gèrén cáichǎn de yǒuxiào xìnrèn: (1) Zhǐdìng shòuyì rén de; (2 ) zhǐdìng de shòutuō rén, shuí bùnéng shì shòuyì rén; (3 ) jījīn huò qítā cáichǎn zúyǐ zhǐdìng huò quèdìng, yǐ shǐ yǔqí suǒyǒuquán chuándì gěi shòutuō rén; hé (4 ) de jījīn huò qítā cáichǎn, huò tāmen de hé fǎ zhuǎnràng gěi shòutuō rén, yǐ tōngguò hé fǎ suǒyǒuquán qízhōng yǐ tā zuòwéi shòutuō rén de yìtú shíjì jiāofù. “Yǒu gēnjù pǔtōng fǎ, méiyǒu xìnrèn, zhídào yǒu yīgè yǒuguān zīchǎn de yǒuxiào jiāofù xìntuō. (Jiàn, sàbó de shìqíng, 10 NY2d 94, 98-99, tóng qián; Speelman v pàsīkǎ ěr, 10 NY2d 313, 318-320, tóngshàng; lí lí sù, 117 NY 421, 428-429, tóngshàng; wùzhí kē’ēn, 187 yìngyòng chéngxù. Xī. 392, 95) Wèi rúguǒ xìnrèn bùnéng huòdé NY2d 48, 56 (NY 1986) yǐnyòng gé lǔ ēn sù gé lǔ ēn, 68.
(Sàbó shìxiàng, shàng wénzhōng, zài dì 98 yè). (Tóngshàng, wén sēn tè v lǐ kè sī, 248 NY 76, 83; zhōu Van Alstyne, shàng wén de wùzhí, dì 309; kàn dào de, lí lí sù, tóng qián, dì 428) yǐn zì gé lǔ ēn sù gé lǔ ēn, 68 NY2d 48, 56-57 (niǔyuē zhōu 1986).
Bùlǎng sù sī bō ěr, 180 NY 201, 209-210 (niǔyuē zhōu 1904). Zhídào jiāofù gěi shòutuō rén de cáichǎn shòuyǔ rén jìnxíng, huò zhízhì gāi děng zhèngquàn de cáichǎn shòuyǔ rén de shēngmíng, dāng tā zìjǐ shì shòutuō rén, chūxiàn zài bù kǎolǜ jiànlì yīgè xìntuō de shòuyì rén méiyǒu quánlì (cānjiàn lǐ gé ěr v juéduì quèdìng zhōngyāng hànnuòwēi yínháng jí xìntuō yǒuxiàn gōngsī, 266 yìngyòng chéngxù fēnqū 586; . Gurlitz de wùzhí [lín dé], 105 záxiàng 30, aff’d 190 yìngyòng chéngxù fēnqū 907, tóng qián; . Mǎkèsī sù mǎkèsī, 5 záxiàng 2D 42) wèi yǐnyòng sà sī màn sù sà sī màn, 61 AD2D 838 (niǔyuē zhōu yìngyòng. Xī. 2D dǎdào 1978). Hé xìntuō fǎ (EPTL) dì 7-2.1 (Sān) shòuquán tóuzī xìntuō jījīn shōugòu bùdòngchǎn huò gèrén cáichǎn“de xìnrèn, zhèyàng de míngchēng de míngchēng pī zhǐdìng zài wénshū shuō de xìnrèn. ”
Cǐwài, shuāngfāng de shíjì hétóng, qízhōng bāo guā bǎoguǎn xiéyì, ànjiē dàikuǎn gòumǎi xiéyì, yǐjí xìntuō wénjiàn bèi chēng wèi “gòngtóng shǐyòng jí fúwù xiéyì” guīdìng de piàojù jí ànjiē zhuǎnràng de yīgè fēicháng jùtǐ de fāngfǎ, yǐ xìntuō.
Yīnwèi zhuǎnyí de fāngfǎ zài yú xìntuō yíqì, tā shì bù shòu rèn hé chāyì huò yìcháng hé xìntuō fǎ (EPTL) dì 7-2.1 (Sān) shòuquán tóuzī xìntuō jījīn shōugòu bùdòngchǎn huò gèrén cáichǎn“zhōng de míngchēng xìnrèn, zhèyàng de míngchēng zài zhǐdìng de wénshū shuō de xìnrèn. “Cǐwài, shuāngfāng de shíjì hétóng, qízhōng bāo guā bǎoguǎn xiéyì, ànjiē dàikuǎn gòumǎi xiéyì, bìng chēng wéi xìntuō wénshū” gòngtóng shǐyòng jí fúwù xiéyì “, dìng míng gāi piàojù jí ànjiē zhuǎnràng gěi xìntuō de yīgè fēicháng jùtǐ de fāngfǎ.
Yīnwèi zhuǎnyí de fāngfǎ zài yú xìntuō yíqì, tā shì bù shòu rèn hé chāyì huò yìcháng.
Zài duì gèrén zhàiwùrén zuòwéi shòutuō rén, gēnjù wéifǎn shòutuō yìwù lǐlùn de dòngzuò, xìntuō wénjiàn guīdìng, chéngduì piàojù jí ànjiē zhuǎnràng yú shòutuō rén, ér gēnjù niǔyuē xìnrèn fǎlǜ guīdìng de yǒuxiào chuándì. Jiē xiàlái de wèntí – “shénme gòuchéng yǒuxiào de chuándì gěi shòutuō rén” shǔxìng, nàme jiù méiyǒu xìnrènguò gāi shǔxìng kě qiángzhì zhíxíng.
Rúguǒ méiyǒu zhǐdìng shòuyì rén de yùnsòng chuándá gěi xìntuō de chángshì jiāng huì shībài.
Zài dǐyā dàikuǎn zhèngquàn huà de bèijǐng xià, hěn xiǎnrán, zài shòutuō rén de míngyì de piàojù jí ànjiē de xìntuō dēngjì shì bìyào de yǒuxiào zhuǎnyí de xìnrèn.
Zài niǔyuē zhízhèng xìntuō de fǎguī, zhìyè quánlì shēnsù bèi bóhuí zhèngquè de, tā yǐjīng shōugòule méiyǒu biāotí de shāngpǐn huò dúlì de kòngzhì, yīncǐ zài dì, yǒu chāoguò cáichǎn wéifǎn rèn hé shíjì de xìnrèn. Kermani sù zìyóu jí wù. Chājiàn. Yǒuxiàn gōngsī 4 AD2D 603 (niǔyuē zhōu yìngyòng. Xī. 3D dǎdào 1957). 15 Fùguó yínháng sù nóngmín,2008 niǔyuē záxiàng fǎlǜ shùjùkù 3248.
Fǎyuàn jì bù huì hūlüè jiāoyì wénjiàn de shíjì guīdìng, yě bù chuàngjiàn hétóng de bǔjiù cuòshī yóu dìng yuē gè fāng lǐshì héyuē bèi shěnglüèle. Cānjiàn Schmidt sù cítóu gōngsī, 468 NYS2d 649, 654 (niǔyuē zhōu App.Div. 1983) (“” Zhè shì gēnběn, wǒmen zhíxíng hétóng, bù chóng xiě tāmen…… Yóu yīfāng dāngshìrén chéngdān de zérèn, mùdì shì zuòwéi yīgè chéngnuò…… Yīnggāi biǎoshì wèi zhèyàng de, ér bù shì liú gěi mplication “ ” (yǐnwén è) ); Morlee xiāoshòu gōngsī sù shāng xìntuō yǒuxiàn zérèn gōngsī, 172 NE2d 280, 282 (NY1961) (“” [T] de cports bùdé tōngguò shīgōng zēngjiā huò xiāofèi fāngmiàn…… , Cóng’ér “shǐ wèi dāngshìrén qiāndìng xīn hétóng de nterpret [zhèndòng xìng] de huǎngzi xià. ‘ “ ” (Yǐnhào sù hǎi lēi jiàohuáng, 250 NE 881, 882 (niǔyuē zhōu 1928) )
dāng zhuǎnyí dào shòutuō rén de yāoqiú, zài gōngsī huò shāngyè xìntuō qìyuē de shàngxiàwén zhōng chákàn, dàyuē fúhé zhèxiē yāoqiú de xiángxì xìnxī biàn dé hěn míngxiǎn.
Shǒuxiān bìxū míngbái, “ [t] tā gōngsī shòutuō rén yǐjīng hěn shǎo yǒu gòngtóng zhī chù yǔ pǔtōng shòutuō rén gēnjù qǐyè de qìyuē shòutuō rén yǒu tā [tā] dìngyì de quánlì hé yìwù, ér bù shì yóu shòutuō guānxì, ér shì yóu zhuānmén de tiáokuǎn gāi xiéyì.
Tā [tā] de zhuàngtài gèng shì shòutuō rén.“Shìshí shàng, ” [yī] n de qìyuē shòutuō rén shì bùtóng yú pǔtōng de shòutuō rén. Yǔ hòu zhě xiāng bǐ, mǒu xiē qíngkuàng xià yě zhǐ xiànyú qìyuē shòutuō rén de zhízé, nàxiē zài yú běn qìyuē. “Zérèn yóu qìyuē xiéyì de tiáokuǎn guīdìng. Jiésuàn, shòutuō rén de zhízé hé quánlì shì yóu xìntuō xiéyì de tiáokuǎn hé dìngyì wèi shòuyì rén “ . Tíhuò yángé zūnshǒu yǔ PSA/xìntuō wénjiàn de guīdìng.
Cǐwài, jiànyú niǔyuē dìchǎn dàguó hé xìntuō fǎ dì 7-2.1 (Sān) shòuquán shòutuō rén qǔdé xìntuō zuòwéi gāi míngchēng de name shǔxìng “pī zhǐdìng zài yīgè lìyì xiāngguān zhě bǐ de qìyuē shòutuō rén zhī yī, tā yīzhí shuō, lèisì yú yī gè lìyì xiāngguān zhě de tóngshí, “ [yī] T zhǐ tōngguò duànliàn zhōngchéng de shòutuō yìwù, zhèxiē ànjiàn hé fǎguī de míngquè dǎorù de shì, zài qǐyè qìyuē tiáokuǎn jiāofù zīchǎn, yǐ shòutuō rén yāoqiú yángé fúhé xìntuō qìyuē de qiángzhì zhuǎnràng tiáokuǎn.
Gǔfèn gōngsī zīběn róngzī hézuò huǒbàn,LP sù shèng bāng yínháng jí xìntuō yǒuxiàn gōngsī 2008 nián niǔyuē zhōu huá yùn. 5766, 7 (Niǔyuē zhōu 2008) lǜsè sù suǒyǒuquán dānbǎo xìntuō yǒuxiàn gōngsī 223 12 wèi AD, niǔyuē zhōu 227 252 (dì yī bù), aff’d, 248 N.Y. 627 (1928); Hā zhā dé sù dàtōng guómíng yínháng, 159 záxiàng. 57, 287 N.Y.S. 541 (Zēngkān CT jiǎnchá. 1936), Aff’d, gōngyuán 257 950, 14 NYS2d 147 (dì yī bù), aff’d, 282 NY 652, zhèngshū. Fǒurèn, 311 měiguó 708 (1940)[19] jiàn měi kè ěr sù dàlù zīyuán, 758 F.2D 811, 816 (2D xúnhuí fǎyuàn 1985) yǐn zì Ambac de INDEM. Gōngsī sù měiguó xìn fú yínháng, 151 záxiàng. 2D 334,336 ( . Niǔyuē xiè de Ct 1991).20 Kàn, měiguó xìntuō yǒuxiàn gōngsī v dì yī chéng quánguó xìng yínháng, 57 AD2D 285, 295-296, aff’d 45 NY2d 869; xìntuō fǎ chóng shù [èr]§ 186, pínglùn yī, sì) rú bèi yuányǐn zài In re rìběn xìngyè shī luō dé yínháng jí xìntuō yǒuxiàn gōngsī 271 AD2D 322 (niǔyuē zhōu yìngyòng. Xī. Dì yī dá dào 2000).
Chuándì wénshū de chuàngzuò shuō xìntuō cáichǎn, “yīnggāi yǒu yīdiǎn yíwèn, duìyú zhuǎnyí dào shòutuō rén shì yǒuxiào de, gāi shǔxìng bìxū zài shòutuō rénwéi tèdìng de xìntuō míngyì dēngjì. Xìntuō cáichǎn bùnéng zuòwéi yuángào biàn chēng, bù wánquán bèishū zhuǎnràng bù biǎoshì gāi wùyè yǐ xìntuō xíngshì chí yǒu yóu shòutuō rén zhǐdìng shòuyì rén xìntuō chí yǒu. Shìshí shàng, zhè shì míngxiǎn de zài niǔyuē de fǎlǜ, qìtú zhuǎnyí zhì xìntuō wúfǎ tóngshí zhǐdìng shòutuō rén jí shòuyì rén shì wúxiào de yùnsòng xìntuō. “Wèi néng mìngmíng wèi shòuyì rén de xìntuō chéngxiàn de fēnpèi méiyǒu fǎlǜ yījù. Zhè yī lìchǎng shì jìnyībù zhīchí luójí zài niǔyuē pǔtōng fǎ yóu yǐxià mìngtí:
(2 ) Wánshàn de lǐwù bìxū de jiāofù bìxū shì wánměi de, yīnwèi gāi wùyè dì xìngzhì hé dāngshìrén de qíngkuàng hé zhōuwéi huánjìng huì hélǐ de yǔnxǔ; bìxū yǒu tǒngzhì hé suǒyǒuquán de biàngēng; yìxiàng huò dānchún de wénzì bùnéng tígōng kòngzhì hé quánbǐng de dōngxī nǐ jǐyǔ de shíjì tóuxiáng dì dìfāng.
Zhè shì juānzèng zhě de yìtú jǐyǔle wánchéng jiāoyì de wánchéng. Dāndú de yìtú, wúlùn duōme wánquán jiànlì, shì wújìyúshì de
fùguó yínháng, NA sù nóngmín,2008 niǔyuē zhōu huá yùn 51133U, (cānjiàn lǐ gé ěr sù zhōngyāng hànnuòwēi yínháng jí xìntuō yǒuxiàn gōngsī, 266 yìngyòng chéngxù fēnqū 586 (niǔyuē zhōu xiè de Ct 2008); . Gurlitz de wùzhí [lín dé], 105 záxiàng 30, aff’d 190 yìngyòng chéngxù fēnqū 907, tóngshàng; . Mǎkèsī sù mǎkèsī, 5 záxiàng 2D 42) yǐn zì sà sī màn sù sà sī màn, 61 AD2D 838 (niǔyuē zhōu yìngyòng chéngxù fēnqū 2D dǎdào 1978). Wén sēn tè sù pǔ tè nán, 248 NY 76, 82-84 (niǔyuē zhōu 1928).
Without the consummated act of delivery, how could one logically argue that delivering a promissory note endorsed in blank (making it bearer paper) into a trustee’s vault is “delivery beyond the authority and control of the donor” when the vault is managed by the agent of the donor? If the donor were to claim that the promissory note “If the donor delivers the property to the third person simply for the purpose of his delivering it to the donee as the agent of the donor, the gift is not complete until the property has actually been delivered to the donee.
Such a delivery is not absolute, for the ordinary principle of agency applies, by which the donor can revoke the authority of the agent, and resume possession of the property, at any time before the authority is executed.”” Were its property, not the trustee’s, there would be no evidentiary basis for the trustee to claim ownership.
Accordingly, New York law expressly requires that for property to be validly delivered to a trust, the property must pass completely out of the control of the donor (and its agents): Another case addressing this issue holds that “In order that delivery to a third person shall be effective, he must be the agent of the donee.
Delivery to an agent of the donor is ineffective, as the agency could be terminated before delivery to the intended donee.”Trustees for securitizations often occupy many roles simultaneously and conflictingly both as document custodians and trustees for myriad thousands of securitizations as well as for various parties who are active in the securitization process including originators, servicers, sponsors and depositors. Accordingly, it is inconceivable that anything other than registration into
Phillippsen v. Emigrant Indus.Sav. Bank, N.Y.S.2D 133, 137-138 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1948). (Beaver v. Beaver, supra, 117 N.Y. 421, 428, 22 N.E. 940, 941, 6 L.R.A. 403, Am.St.Rep. 531). See, also, Grant Trust& Savings Co. V. Tucker, 49 Ind. App. 345; Furenes v. Eide, 109 Ia. 511; Dickeschied v. Exchange Bank, W. Va. 340; Love v. Francis, Mich. 181; [**428] Merchant v. Building Co. [***15], Ohio Circuit Ct. 190.) In re Nat’l Commer. Bank& Trust Co., 257 A.D. 868, 869-870 (N.Y. App. Div. 3D Dep’t 1939) citing Vincent v. Rix, supra v. Rix, supra; Bump v. Pratt, Hun, 201.
“The name of the trust as such name is designated in the instrument creating said trust property” could ever qualify as delivery to any particular securitization trust. Absent such registration, there would be nothing that would indicate which of thousands of trusts in the care of a trustee a particular promissory note might belong to or if it were the personal property of the This point was recently slammed home to the public consciousness in a watershed decision out of the State of Massachusetts. On January 7, 2011, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts—the highest court in that state—rendered a unanimous verdict in a case captioned U.S. Natl. Bank Assn., Trustee, v. Ibanez, For ABFC 20050PT 1 Trust, ABFC Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005-0PT 1, No. SJC-10694, (Mass. Jan. 7, 2011).
While that ruling may or may not be binding upon this case; it is very much contrary to the mortgage securitization industry’s position in cases involving the foreclosure of mortgage loans which have allegedly been securitized. The facts of the case in Massachusetts and the facts of this instant case are similar.
The case was a ruling on two consolidated cases – both cases were filed by banks (as trustees for two separate trusts) to quiet title on properties they had foreclosed and purchased at the foreclosure sale to satisfy the mortgagor’s debt.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that neither bank proved that its trust owned the mortgages when they foreclosed on the homes; therefore, neither had title to the foreclosed properties and that their foreclosures were void. Effectively, this put the borrowers back into the place they were before the foreclosure.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did not tell the homeowners they are allowed to shirk their obligation to pay their mortgages, which are still outstanding, valid obligations.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did, however, sharply instruct the banks that they must have the proper documentation which demonstrates a valid right to foreclose before a foreclosure can be carried out.
It is well worth noting the conclusion of the Massachusetts Ibanez opinion. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court noted that “The legal principles and requirements we set forth are well established in our case law and our statutes.
All that has changed is the [banks’] apparent failure to abide by those principles and requirements in the rush to sell mortgage-backed securities.” Just as the principles and requirements of Massachusetts law are well-founded, so too are those of New York law, and they should be upheld even if adherence to the law is inconvenient for banks rushing to sell mortgage-backed securities.
B-3 THE INTENT TO TRANSFER AN ASSET TO THE TRUST IS NOT A TRANSFER TO THE TRUST
The contents of these statutes, cases and contracts lead to one inescapable conclusion: The intent of the parties and the requirements of the contracts were that the assets be conveyed to the Trusts by the Trust closing dates.
For a transfer to any foreclosure industry has chosen to argue that it is clear that it was the parties’“intent” to transfer these assets and therefore “no court” would ever declare that these assets were not transferred to these trusts. The controlling law is overwhelmingly against the industry in this position. The failure to deliver the notes and mortgages to these trusts as required by the trust instruments is a default under the terms of every agreement that these parties executed, including their agreements for payment guarantees with the monoline bond insurers. The securitization industry chose to create its securitization trusts under New York law precisely because the law was ancient and settled.
Now that the actions of the foreclosure industry contradicts that law, parties such as the defendant trust are left to argue hope against precedent. The well-settled New York trust law provides that “A mere intention to make a gift which has not been carried into effect, confers no right upon the intended beneficiary.
There must be also delivery beyond the power of further control and dominion.” The foreclosure industry has chosen to argue that it is clear that it was the parties’“intent” to transfer these assets and therefore “no court” would ever declare that these assets were not transferred to these trusts.
The controlling law is overwhelmingly against the Movant`s in this position.
The failure to deliver the notes and mortgages to these trusts as required by the trust instruments is a default under the terms of every agreement that these parties executed, including their agreements for payment guarantees with the monoline bond insurers.
The securitization industry chose to create its securitization trusts under New York law precisely because the law was ancient and settled.
Now that the actions of the foreclosure industry contradicts that law, parties such as the Plaintiff trust are left to argue hope against precedent. The well-settled New York trust law provides that “A mere intention to make a gift which has not been carried into effect, confers no right upon the intended beneficiary. There must be also delivery beyond the power of further control and dominion.” Equity will not help out an incomplete delivery.
If the agent of the donor has failed to make the delivery expected equity will particular trust to be effective, there should have been a registration of the assets into “the name of the trust as such name is designated in the instrument creating said trust property”—this is the only method by which these assets could have been “divested from the possession and title” of the donors. In response to the lucidity of the controlling law on this issue, the mortgage (Vincent v. Rix, 248 N.Y. 76, 85 V. Rix, 248 N.Y. 76, 85; Matter of Green, 247 App. Div. 540; McCarthy v. Pieret, 281 N.Y. 407, 409.) As cited by In re FIRST TRUST& DEPOSIT CO., 264 A.D. 940, 941 (N.Y. App. Div. 4Th Dep’t 1942) not declare him a trustee for the donee. “Thus, Thornton on Gifts and Advancements (§140) notes: “In determining whether there has been a valid delivery, the situation of the subject of the gift must be considered.
If it is actually present, and capable of delivery without serious effort, it is not too much to say that there must be an actual delivery, although the donor need not in person or by agent hand the article to the donee, if the latter assumes the possession.” There was absolutely nothing in the physical nature of the papers to be delivered in this case, or in the physical condition or the surroundings of the donor, that made a symbolical delivery necessary of the thing given has been very largely relaxed, but a symbolical delivery is sufficient delivery as nearly perfect and complete as the circumstances will allow.
Some cases have confined the duties of the indenture trustee to those set forth in the indenture. From this context springs the seminal rule of law that effectively causes the parties to the Trust agreement and the Trust to be “gored by their own bull”.
New It is true that the old rule requiring an actual delivery only when the conditions are so adverse to actual delivery as to make a symbolical Further, the failure to convey to a trust per the controlling trust document is not a matter that may be cured by the breaching party. New York law is unflinchingly clear that a trustee has only the authority granted by the instrument under which he holds, either deed or will.
This fundamental rule has existed from the beginning and is still law. An indenture trustee is unlike the ordinary trustee. In contrast with the latter, Vincent v. Putnam, 248 N.Y. 76, 82-84 (N.Y. 1928) In re Van Alstyne, 207 N.Y. 298, 309-310 (N.Y. 1913).31 In re Van Alstyne, 207 N.Y. 298, 309-310 (N.Y. 1913). Allison& Ver Valen Co. V. McNee, 170 Misc. 144, 146 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1939). Ambac Indem. Corp. V. Bankers Trust Co., 151 Misc. 2D 334, 336 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1991).
Therefore, the trustees for these trusts may only acquire assets in the manner set forth in the trust Instrument and may not acquire assets in violation of the trust instrument.
To the extent that any assets were not conveyed to these trusts as required and when required by the trust instrument, they are not assets of the trusts and the trustee cannot correct this deficiency now since the funding period provided in the Trust instruments passed many years ago.
The attempts to acquire assets by these trusts which violate the terms of the Trust instrument are void.
Therefore, late assignments, improper chains of title, late endorsements, improper chains of title in the endorsements and the attempt to transfer to the trusts by foreclosure deed are just a number of the many examples of actions which are void if taken by a party to the indenture who is attempting to transfer property to the Trustee for the Trust in violation of the trust instrument.
C. THE TRUST NEVER PROPERLY ACQUIRED THE MORTGAGE NOTE AND THE TRUST CANNOT CURE ITS FATAL STANDING DEFECT
Therefore, the trustees for these trusts may only acquire assets in the manner set forth in the trust instrument and may not acquire assets in violation of the trust instrument.
To the extent that any assets were not conveyed to these trusts as required and when required by the trust instrument, they are not assets of the trusts and the trustee cannot correct this deficiency now since the funding period provided in the Trust instruments passed many years ago.
The attempt to acquire assets by these trusts which violate the terms of the Trust instrument are void. Therefore, late assignments, improper chains of title, late endorsements, improper chains of title in the endorsements and the attempt to transfer to the trusts by foreclosure deed are just a number of the many examples of actions which are void if taken by a party to the indenture who is attempting to transfer property to the Trustee for the Trust in violation of the trust instrument.
C. THE TRUST NEVER PROPERLY ACQUIRED THE MORTGAGE NOTE AND THE TRUST CANNOT CURE ITS FATAL STANDING DEFECT
York’s law is so well-settled regarding the limitations of a trustee’s power to act that New York’s Estates Powers and Trust Law Section 7-2.4 States: § 7-2.4 Act of trustee in contravention of trust If the trust is expressed in the instrument creating the estate of the trustee, every sale, conveyance or other act of the trustee in contravention of the trust, except as authorized by this article and by any other provision of law, is void.
Under New York law there is no trust over property that has not been properly transferred to a trust. The Defendant Trust stated to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in filings under oath that it has assets in excess of $400 million.
To acquire assets, the Trust must be funded in accordance with the requirements of the PSA/Trust documents. The pertinent terms of the agreement are found at§2.01 (Conveyance of Trust Fund) of the PSA. This section details how the mortgage notes in the instant case were transferred from Bank of America NA. (As Originator) to” U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” .
The Subject note is in Blank and is not made out to the name of the Movant. U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” Bank of America NA, is the alleged mortgage holder as indicated on the note. “Pay to the order of U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” does not have the authority to get the lift of STAY, there is no “showing” of an unbroken chain of endorsements in the documents provided to the Debtor. “According to the requirements set forth in the Trust Agreement.
A series of endorsements of the promissory note reflective of each party who had an interest in the promissory note culminating with a blank endorsement from the depositor at the very minimum.”
The Trust never possessed the mortgage note per the terms of the PSA (Pooling and Service Agreement). Further, in the PSA’s exhibits, Exhibit One sets forth the contents of the collateral file for each mortgage loan that is trust property and further includes a final specific endorsement to the Trustee for the specific trust in this case to effect a final transfer to the Trust and to make the subject note trust property. Any attempt by” U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” Bank of America NA, to transfer the promissory note to the Trust at this late date would fail for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that the closing date of August 30, 2007 passed nearly 6 years ago.
By the terms of the Trust and the applicable provision of the Internal Revenue Code incorporated into and a part of the Trust agreement, the promissory note cannot be transferred to the Trust. The Trust has never owned the subject promissory note and the Trust can never own the subject promissory note.
Trust has not provided documentation to show that it was or is entitled to the money secured by the mortgage of subject property. “U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for holders of Banc of America Funding Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7, without recourse,” has offered no verifiable proof of ownership.
End……
whole trust at link
http://Www.Sec.Gov/Archives/edgar/data/934377/000137940207000041/form424b5.Txt
Prospectus at link
http://Www.Sec.Gov/Archives/edgar/data/934377/000137940207000043/ex4_1.Txt
Pooling and Servicing agreement at link
******************************************
Anthony Kenny 