645068 – US BANK VS. MARTIN, A – Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment – DENIED. The Plaintiff as moving party has established a prima facie showing that it is entitled to judgment for possession against Defendant as a matter of law. However, Defendant’s objections Nos. 1, 3-6, 8, 9, and 11 to the Johnson Declaration are overruled; and objections Nos. 2, 7 and 10 are sustained, based on a lack personal knowledge and/or hearsay, regarding the alleged transfer of the beneficial interest to Plaintiff and as to the reasonable rental value.
Further, the Court finds the Defendant has met his burden of establishing triable issues of fact to rebut the presumption of validity of the sale and the issue of whether Plaintiff had the right to proceed with foreclosure. Namely the evidence of a gap in title and security interest from Downey Savings & Loan through the FDIC to Plaintiff during the time of the foreclosure proceeding, as well as missing evidence to show whether the Trustee, DSL Service Company, was authorized to act as Plaintiff’s agent in continuing to pursue the sale once Downey Savings & Loan had lost its security interest. (See Plaintiff’s undisputed fact # 7 and Defendant’s objection thereto; and Declaration of Defense counsel, McCandless, paragraphs 2, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13). As such, triable issues of material fact remain and the motion for summary judgment is denied.
Works Rights Compliance Alliance 
The issue with the FDIC, of which I have won cases against, is that of what did the FDIC purchase or take over when they took over the assets of a Bank that had defaulted!
In most of the cases that I have reviewed they only took over the Servicing Rights that the Bank maintained after they sold the Note (and who knows if the mortgage / deed of trust when with it).
No attorney (except ones that I am working with) has pursued this fact issue. If the FDIC sold something to another bank it was not the NOTE or the rights to collect from the homeowner.
More fraud that the Attorneys are missing.
Forensic Mortgage Auditing and Foreclosure Defense
oliver@ipa.net
john
This is an interesting perspective as it affects a large number of clients. Most ordinary borrowers have not got around to asking this question.
I’d be really interested to know as GMAC and I think Downey dealt with a lot of negam loans in California what services you offer in this respect.
I have many clients who would be interested.
Thanks Kevin 760 208 2609
I’ve seen your name a lot on the web when it comes to Downey Savings and Loan. I have a client that needs to sue Downey, and I can’t find their registered agent anywhere save for the FDIC. Is the FDIC the registered agent now “as receiver for” Downey? If so, do I use the TX address to serve for CA? Also, would FDIC AS RECEIVER FOR be listed on the lawsuit or would I still keep it on Downey? It’s a very strong case, when you email me I’ll tell you what these guys did. Thanks Mr. Mccandless!
Where do I start…wrongfull forclosure Downey dec 24, 2008, Forclosure paper work states plantif s Downey wrong address and dates in some places, Downey was no longer functioning at the time, we were in bankrupsy, trying to modify using hope.gov, they would not even talk to us about a mod despite the fact that we had lived in house 14 yrs perfect pay record and credit scores of 700-800
house worth 910k our we bought for