I was keeping track of the number of Sheriff's Sales stopped, but I decided that this gave the wrong impression to viewers. An attorney should not be consulted as a matter of last resort. Instead an attorney should be consulted early in the process and the sooner an attorney is consulted the more likely a Homeowner will have a favorable result

The Law Office of Bruce M. Broyles

2670 North Columbus Street, Suite L, Lancaster, Ohio 43130

Phone: (740) 277-7850 / (330) 965-1093

The Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct suggest that the reader be informed that one of the purposes of this blog is to attract potential clients, and therefore should be considered attorney advertisement

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Anh Nguyet Tran vs. Bank of New York Petition for Writ of Certiorari

An amended complaint asserting a RICO action against REMIC trusts was dismissed on the grounds that Plaintiffs lacked standing to assert the failure to comply with the Trust's pooling and servicing agreement.  The writ asserts that a split exists within the U.S. Circuits on the issue of Plaintiffs' standing.  The Second Circuit held that Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the validity of the assignment.  The First Circuit in Culhane v. Aurora Loan Services of Nebraska, 708 F.3d 282 (1st Cir.2013) held that Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the validity of the assignment.

Both Anh Nguyet Tran and Culhane address the issue of whether Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the validity of an assignment.  However, rather than determining only the threshold issue that Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the validity of the assignment as in Culhane, the Court in Anh Nguyet Tran addressed the merits of the challenge to the validity of the assignment.  In Culhane, the Court determined that if the Plaintiff's challenge was correct the foreclosure would be void.  As such, Culhane found the Plaintiffs had standing, but then determined that the Plaintiffs' challenge to MERS involvement in the transaction did not render the assignment void.  In Anh Nguyet Tran, the Court determined that Plaintiffs' lacked standing to challenge the validity of the assignment based upon the Court's determination of the merits.  In Anh Nguyet Tran, the Court determined that the challenge to the validity of the assignment would not succeed and therefore determined that Plaintiffs lacked standing.

One of the main issues is whether the failure to comply with the Trust's governing documents renders the transaction void or merely voidable.  If the promissory note and mortgage are transferred after the closing date, and in a manner not described by the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, then the terms of the Pooling and Servicing agreement are violated.  The majority of these trusts are governed by New York Law. The New York Law of Estates, Powers and Trusts, N.Y. EPT. LAW § 7-2.4, states:

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.

The Second Circuit relied upon standard Trust Law and determined that the beneficiaries could ratify invalid acts of the Trustee.  If the invalid acts could be ratified, then these transactions were merely voidable, not void.  A voidable transaction does not give Plaintiff mortgagors standing to challenge the validity of the assignment.

The problem in Anh Nguyet Tran is that the Court addresses the merits of the case upon a motion to dismiss based upon the threshold issue of standing.  There has been no discovery and no argument presented on the issue upon which the Court ultimately determined the case; whether the beneficiaries could ratify the invalid act of the Trustee.  Generally speaking, it is true that beneficiaries can ratify the invalid acts of the Trustee.  However, in mortgage securitization the Courts are dealing with REMIC Trusts, and these Trusts have provisions which prevent the Trustee from taking any action that would render the REMIC election invalid.  The invalid acts of a Trustee of a REMIC Trust cannot be ratified.  As such, these invalid transactions are void not merely voidable.

A similar battle is being fought in Ohio.  Homeowners are prevented from asserting challenges to the validity of the assignment based upon appellate court decisions that rely upon Bank of New York Mellon vs. Unger (Ohio App. 8th Dist.) 2012-Ohio-1950.  However, the Sixth Circuit has expressly stated that the federal cases relied upon by Unger are too broadly interpreted.  See, Alexander vs. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (N.D. Ohio West Dis.) Case No.: 3:12-CV-02704; and Slorp vs. Lerner Sampson & Rothfuss,
587 Fed.Appx. 249.  According to Alexander and Slorp Ohio Homeowners should be able to challenge the validity of assignments if the challenge would result in a void transaction.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015


I previously represented a client in a foreclosure case.  The client decided he no longer wanted to contest his foreclosure, and asked me to cease any further efforts.  Recently, the client contacted my office stating that he had a federal criminal matter in which the potential sentence was being greatly increased due to the Lender significantly increasing the amount it allegedly lost on a mortgage it foreclosed upon.  Through Attorney Jeff Barnes' network of attorneys and experts I was able to put my client in contact with Richard Kahn of FPG-USA.  Mr. Kahn worked on my client's report while away from his office on a previously scheduled trip; had the report to my client's criminal defense attorneys, and Mr. Kahn's report made a dramatic change in the outcome of the sentence.
See, the testimonial at the link below.!testimonials/c1yws

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Evidence of Ratification

The New York law of Trusts states expressly that transactions in violation of the Trust governing documents are void.  Most Courts do not analyze the  the trust documents and simply say that the mortgagor is not a party tovthe PSA and therefore cannot enforce the terms of the PSA.  Those Courts that do lookvfurther into the issue, eventually say that the beneficiaries can ratify the conduct of the Trustee and therefore the failure to comply with yhe PSA renders the transactions merely voidable.  However if one reads the PSA the PSA expressly prohibits the trust from taking any action that would render the trust subject to a tax or invalidate the REMiC.  As such yhe beneficiaries can not ratify these acts or transactions.  In yhe alternative,  shouldn't the Platiff trust be required ro demonstrate thst the beneficiaries actually ratified the act or transaction.