Connect with us

Appellate Circuit

That German Bank and the Skulduggery of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company was an unsecured creditor when the banks failed in 2008. Now it’s a fraudulent vehicle for the judiciary



Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Does NOT Legally Exist as Trustee for Borrower Loans

MAR 10, 2020 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: OCT 13, 2021

Several readers have sent me information regarding DBNTC and pointed out that I had misstated the status of DBNTC in past articles. I think they were at least partially right. Thanks to all the readers who sent in comments and information.

DBNTC is a name change from Banker’s Trust which was a real bank, organized and existing under national charter. So DBNTC exists under a national charter. But DBNTC is not a bank in the sense that it makes loans or collects deposits from customers. It is a trust management company. So bottom line, DBNTC does exist as a legal entity.

The conflict arises when the DBNTC name is used in conjunction with a REMIC Trust. This might appear as

“DBNTC as Trustee for the XYZ Trust” or
“DBNTC as Trustee on behalf of the holders of certificate series ABC-2008A” or
“DBNTC as Trustee for certificate series ABC-2008A” or
“DBNTC” as Trustee for the certificate holders of XYZ Trust series ABC-2008A”
Despite the variation in names it all adds up to the same thing.

First, since DBNTC has never entered into a transaction in which it paid value in exchange for any debt, it cannot be the owner of the debt.

Second, since no trustor or settlor has entrusted any debt to DBNTC, it can’t be the trustee with any right, title or interest in the debt’s ownership or management.

Third, since the certificates do not convey any right, title or interest to any debt, the certificates are irrelevant but are stated to create the misleading impression that a foreclosure is brought on behalf of investors who will receive the money proceeds from the forced sale of the home. They don’t receive any money from those sales and they are not entitled to receive such proceeds.

Fourth, certificates are not legal persons and therefore stating that the action is brought by DBNTC for a certificate series says nothing more than DBNTC is not appearing in its own behalf but rather in a representative capacity — all without stating what capacity other than calling it “trustee.”

Fifth, DBNTC does not have any contractual or other authority to represent certificates or owners of certificates. It is stated in vague terms to create the misleading impression that the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has some provision enabling DBNTC to represent the owners of certificates as though they are beneficiaries of the trust. Certificate owners are not beneficiaries of any trust. They are creditors. And there is no agreement in which DBNTC represents the interests of the certificate holders.

Sixth, the naming of a beneficiary under a deed of trust or a Plaintiff in a foreclosure action including the DBNTC name is entirely misleading.

DBTC is a legal entity.

The trust — whether expressly named or implied — either does not exist or does not exist in relation to the subject debt.

Trusts are generally held to exist only if the elements are present — trust agreement, settlor (trustor), beneficiaries and res — a thing of value entrusted to the trustee to keep for beneficiaries.

In all cases the REMIC trust is virtually the same as MERS — it is naked nominee for any documents executed in favor of the trustee or trust for its principal, the investment bank that was the named underwriter (but actually the issuer of the certificates doing business under the name of a fake trust).

But without conveyance of the debt (i.e., in a transaction in which value is paid) the paper conveyance of an interest in a mortgage or deed of trust is a legal nullity in all US jurisdictions.

Thus the trust holds nothing and does not, in most jurisdictions, have any status as a legal entity.

The certificate holders exist but they are irrelevant.

The certificates actually don’t exist except in virtual form and are also irrelevant.

Since the trust does not own the debt, there is no trustee with any power or right to administer the loan.

Hence naming DBNTC as trustee is merely a ploy intended to mislead you and the courts into thinking that a trust exists, in which the debt is owned and certificate owners are beneficiaries.

None of those things are true. It is a lie.

Hence if the foreclosure mills just named DBNTC without saying “trustee” or naming certificates, or a trust or certificate holders, they would be naming a legal entity, albeit one without any claim. BUT by naming those other things and implied entities they are naming an entity that does not exist legally or even equitably.

Even if an entity was found to technically exist, it has no claim because it does not own the debt, note or mortgage —despite paper conveyances fabricated to create the false assertion that the mortgage or beneficial interest had somehow been conveyed — despite the absence of any real transfer of the debt.

In previous articles I said things to the effect that DBNTC did not exist. That was shorthand for saying that it did not exist in relation to any debt of any homeowner where the loan was subject to claims of securitization.

I apologize for the confusion. I hope this article clears it up.


Copyright © 2022 is an online brand name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware