Were the motion to be amended to properly name the movant to be the UD plaintiff and the purported titleholder – “U S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee,” any such movant would still have no standing to bring this motion without naming the trust for whose benefit they are purporting to act as trustee. If there is a trust, it must be named. There is no trust.
This nuance has been too difficult for other judges to grasp and clearly beyond the abilities of the debtor’s attorney to communicate. Esteemed bankruptcy judges have shown no interest in the identity of, or the existence of, the trust purporting to hold title to the subject property. The unlawful detainer commissioners who ruled in summary judgment while debtor’s counsel was on vacation were similarly unconcerned.
By way of illustration, debtor’s counsel suggests that the court substitute the hypothetical name “BOZO THE CLOWN” for “U S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION.” If “BOZO THE CLOWN, as Trustee” were to have acquired the subject property by trustee’s deed upon sale, one may wonder aloud that it was not “BOZO THE CLOWN” that acquired the subject property, but rather “BOZO THE CLOWN, as Trustee” for another entity – a trust. Indeed, it would be ridiculous to say that “BOZO THE CLOWN” owned the property. Instead, it would be imminently reasonable to inquire as to the identity of the trust on whose behalf “BOZO THE CLOWN” was acting as trustee. One might expect some courts to make such an inquiry sua sponte. One would readily expect any court to take some interest in the issue were a party to object to a motion filed by “BOZO THE CLOWN” – as trustee or otherwise – for failing to identify the trust purporting to own the subject property.
In the motion before the court, there are no clowns, just a bank acting as trustee for an unnamed trust. A trust that debtor’s counsel contends does not exist. It’s one thing to lose one’s home to a bank that cheats. It’s quite another to lose it to a bank or a trust that doesn’t exist
Works Rights Compliance Alliance 