Sample cases:

http://www.kcra.com/news/new-ruling-for-calif-homeowners-facing-foreclosure/24757110 SECTION A FORECLOSURES BY TRUSTS CASES DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE Cases Bank of New York v. LaFalce, Case No. 10 06966 (Hillsborough County, Florida 2012) Trust: TBW Mortgage - Backed, PT Certs., Series 2006 - 2 “On October 11, 2011, this Court directed Plaintiff to provide some documentation or other evidence showing the authority of the original mortgage holder, Taylor Bean & Whitaker (“TBW”), to assign the subject mortgage to it in light of a bankruptcy filed by TBW in August, 2009. Even after being given additional time to com ply, and even after its then - counsel was disqualified after failing to comply, Plaintiff willfully failed to comply with this Court’s Order. Tellingly, even after the Defendant sought entry of Final Judgment based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with

this Order, Plaintiff still failed to comply.” Citibank N.A. v. Murillo, Index No. 16214/08, 2011 NY Slip Op 21004 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2011) Trust: Bear Stearns AB Trust 2007 - SD3 “Today is sixty - four (64) days since I issued my November 4, 2008 order and seventy - nine (79) days since Chief Administrative Judge Pfau issued her Administrative Order with respect to plaintiff's counsel confirming, in foreclosure actions, the factual accuracy of plaintiff's court filings and notarizations. I have not received the twice ordered affirmation from plaintiff's 1 counsel. Therefore, for violation of these orders, the instant foreclosure action is dismissed with prejudice and the notice of pendency is cancelled and discharged.” Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Bodzianowski, Case No. 1:11 - cv -

01950 (N.D. ILL October 11, 2011) Trust: NovaStar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2006 - 5 “Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing is granted. Case is dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiff Deutsche Bank and withou t prejudice as to any other Plaintiff who may have proper standing.” Deutsche Bank v. Francis, 2011 NY Slip Op 50423(U), Index: 10441/09 Trust: GSAMP 2007 - FM2 Mortgage Amount: $445,500 “Plaintiff DEUTSCHE BANK lacked standing to foreclose on the instant mo rtgage and note when this action commenced on April 29, 2009, the day that DEUTSCHE BANK filed the summons, verified complaint and notice of pendency with the Kings County Clerk, because it can not demonstrate that it owned the mortgage and note that day. Plaintiff alleges that the April 21, 2009 assignment from MERS, as nominee for FREMONT, to plaintiff DEUTSCHE BANK was to be recorded. As of today it has not been recorded.” Deutsche Bank v. Lippi, Case No. CA08 - 0127 (St. Johns County, Fla. 2010)

Trust: GSAMP 2006 - FM1 2 “Even though this Court repeatedly asked Plaintiff to provide pleadings or documents that GSAMP 2006 - FM1 was an actual entity that was the real party in interest, and despite numerous requests from Defendant, no allegations were made. Fur thermore, the Mortgage at issue on its face showed that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Incorporated (“MERS”) was the nominee for Fremont Investment and Loan. An Assignment of Mortgage, dated after Plaintiff brought this action, showed that MERS was the nominee for America’s Servicing Company (“ASC”). Plaintiff never showed the GSAMP 2006 - FM1 had standing to bring the action... THEREFORE, the court hereby ORDERS and ADJUDGES as follows: 1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint i s GRANTED with prejudice because over a two year period Plaintiff failed to allege or provide documents demonstrating its right to bring this action.” Reversed on appeal. 78 So.3d 81 Fla. 5

th DCA 2012). HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Taher, 32 Misc. 3d. 1208(A), 932 N.Y.S. 2d 760 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2011) Trust: Renaissance Home Equity Loan Trust 2007 - 2 “Therefore, the continuation of this action by plaintiff HSBC, with its false statements of fact, the use of robosigners, and the disingenuous affirmation of Mr. Cassara, appears to be frivolous... It is clear that the instant motion for an order of reference “is completely without merit in law” and “asserts material factual statements that are false.” Further, Mr. Cassara’s January 6, 2011 affirmation, 3 with it s false and defective statements may be a cause for sanctions.” HSBC Bank v. Yeasmin, 2010 NY Slip Op 50927 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2010) Trust: Nomura AB Certs., Series 2006 - AF1 Mortgage Amount: $624,800 “The instant renewed motion is dismissed for untim eliness. Plaintiff made its renewed motion for an

order of reference 204 days late, in violation of the Court's May 2, 2008 decision and order. Moreover, even if the instant motion was timely, the explanations offered by plaintiff's counsel, in his affirma tion in support of the instant motion and various documents attached to exhibit F of the instant motion, attempting to cure the four defects explained by the Court in the prior May 2, 2008 decision and order, are so incredible, outrageous, ludicrous and disingenuous that they should have been authored by the late Rod Serling, creator of the famous sciencefiction television series, The Twilight Zone. Plaintiff's counsel, Steven J. Baum, P.C., appears to be operating in a parallel mortgage universe, unrelat ed to the real universe...” U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Emmanuel, 27 Misc.3d 1220(A), Index No. 19272/09 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2009) Trust: SG Mortgage Securities AB Certs., Series 2006 - FRE2 Mortgage Amount: $480,000 (This dismissal with prejudice was later rever sed by 921 4 N.Y.S.2d 320 (App. Div. 2011).) “The instant foreclosure action...is denied with prejudice. The instant action is dismissed and the

instant notice of pendency is cancelled. Plaintiff U.S. BANK never had standing to prosecute this action because of an ineffective assignment of the subject mortgage and note to it. Plaintiff’s U.S. BANK’s attempt to foreclose upon a mortgage in which it has to legal or equitable interest is without foundation in law or fact.” U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Harpster, Case No. S1 - 2007 - CA - 6684 - ES (Pasco County, Fla. 2010) Trust: Banc of America Funding 2007 - 6 Trust Findings of Fact: “7) The Assignment, as an instrument of fraud in this Court intentionally perpetrated upon this Court by the Plaintiff, was made to appear as though it was created and notorized (sic) on December 5, 2007. However, that purported creation/notarization date was facially impossible: the stamp on the notary was dated May 19, 2012. Since Notary commissions only

last four years in Florida (see F.S. Section 1 17.01 (1)), the notary stamp used on this instrument did not even exist until approximately five months after the purported date on the Assignment. 8) Confirming this, the Notary Bonding Company’s representative, Erika Espinoza, stated in a sworn affidavit that the Notary Stamp used by Terry Rice, the Notary, did not exist on the purported date it was notarized. Specifically, Espinoza testified in her affidavit that the notary stamp didn’t come into 5 existence until sometime in April, 2008, five months aft er the date on the Assignment...” (Plaintiff’s complaint dismissed with prejudice, based on the fraud intentionally perpetrated upon the Court by the Plaintiff.) U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Kimball, 27 A.3d 1087, 2011 VT 81 Trust: RASC 2005 - AHL1 Mortgage Amount: $185,520 “At this point, US Bank abandoned its claim of assignment of the mortgage and instead asserted that it held the original note. It submitted the note with an allonge containing two undated specific endorsements, one to US Bank. The supporting affid avit claimed that

the note had been endorsed to US Bank, but provided no information about when and failed to explain why a note with a blank endorsement was the basis for the complaint... In fact, US Bank asserted that the note with the blank endorsement wa s an earlier copy that was mistakenly attached to the complaint. It also alleged that the blank endorsement was stamped with RFC’s name in 2005. Therefore, it could not possibly have held the original note with a blank endorsement when the complaint was fi led. Further, there is no evidence to show that US Bank held the original note endorsed to its name before the complaint was filed. While US Bank eventually produced the original note with an endorsement to it, none of the evidence submitted at summary jud gment by US Bank established the timing of the endorsement.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Farmer, 19 Misc.3d 1141 (A), 2008 NY Slip Op 51133(U) 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2008) Trust: Park Place Sec., Inc. ABPT Certs., Series 2005 WLL1 Mortgage Amount: $460,000 “ In my February 4, 2008 decision and order in the instant matter I denied without prejudice the application of plaintiff WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS

TRUSTEE (WELLS FARGO) for an order of reference...with leave to renew upon providing the Court with: a copy of a valid assignment of the instant mortgage and note to plaintiff WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE (WELLS FARGO); a satisfactory explanation to questions with respect to the two December 8, 2004 assignments of the instant mortgage and note from ARGENT MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC (ARGENT) to AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY (AMERIQUEST), and then from AMERIQUEST to plaintiff WELLS FARGO... Plaintiff has renewed its application for an order of reference for the subject premises, but the papers submitted fail to cure the defects enumerated in my prior decision and order. The purported plaintiff, WELLS FARGO, does not own the instant mortgage loan. Therefore, the instant matter is dismissed with prejudice... Further, the second December 8, 2008 assignment, from AMER IQUEST to "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee," fails to name a beneficiary for the Trustee. The failure to name a beneficiary for the Trustee renders the assignment without merit. It is axiomatic that "[t]here are four essential elements of a trust: (1) a designated beneficiary; (2) a designated trustee; (3) a fund or other property sufficiently designated or identified to enable title thereto to pass to the trustee; and (4) actual delivery or legal assignment of the property to the trustee, with the inten

tion of passing 7 legal title to such property to the trustee (cites mitted)... Both December 8, 2004 defective assignments - ARGENT to AMERIQUEST and AMERIQUEST to WELLS FARGO - are voided and cancelled. ARGENT is the owner of the FARMER mortgage loan. Well s Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Reyes, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21(N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2008) Trust: Morgan Stanley ABS Capital 1, Inc., MSAC 2007 - HE4 Mortgage Amount: $617,500 “The Court is gravely concerned that it expended scarce resources on a motion by WELLS FARGO, whi ch is not the owner and has never been the owner of the REYES' mortgage. WELLS FARGO has no standing in the instant action... It is clear that plaintiff WELLS FARGO lacks standing to foreclose on the instant REYES' mortgage. WELLS FARGO has failed to establi sh ownership of the mortgage. Therefore, WELLS FARGO may not seek judicial redress. There are no recorded assignments of the note from MERS as nominee of WMC to any other party, despite WELLS FARGO's allegation, in ¶ 4 of the

February 21, 2008 verified complaint, that the MERS as nominee for WMC mortgage was “assigned to Plaintiff [WELLS FARGO] by assignment(s). Plaintiff is still the owner and holder of the aforementioned instrument(s) [the WMC mortgage].” ...ORDERED, that as plaintiff, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE AND CUSTODIAN FOR MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL 1 INC., MSAC 2007 - HE4, lacks standing and has never been the mortgagee in this foreclosure action, the 8 instant complaint, Index No. 5516/08, is dismissed with prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that the Notice of Pendency filed with the Kings County Clerk on February 21, 2008, by purported plaintiff, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE AND CUSTODIAN FOR MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL1 INC., MSAC 2007 - HE4, in an actio n to foreclose a mortgage for real property... is cancelled...” Dismissal with Prejudice Reversed on Appeal and Remanded (with significant increased attorney’s fees to the trust). 9 SECTION B FORECLOSURES BY TRUSTS

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE OR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR BANK REVERSED ON APPEAL Cases Augenstein v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, No. 2009 - CA - 000058 - MR, Kentucky Ct. Appeals 2011 Trust: Soundview Home Loan Trust 2005 - OPT4 Summary judgment for bank vacated and remanded. “In this case, the co mplaint was filed on December 17, 2007, but the assignment of mortgage was not executed until January 3, 2008. Thus, Deutsche Bank had no present interest when it filed its complaint and failed to take any steps to correct this. Allowing Deutsche Bank to c ommence this action at a time when it lacked standing impermissibly allowed litigation to commence based upon mere expectancy of an interest.” Bank of America v. Kabba, 276 P.3d 1006, 2012 OK 23 Trust: Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust Series 2004

- BNC2 “In the present case, Appellee has only presented evidence of an indorsed - in - blank note and an "Assignment of Mortgage." Appellee must prove that it is the holder of the note or the nonholder in possession who has the rights of a holder prior to the 10 filing of the foreclosure proceeding. In the present matter the timeliness of the transfer is in question. Since Bank of America did not file the blank indorsement until it filed its motion for summary judgment it is impossible to determine from the record when Bank of America acquired its interest in the underlying note.” Bank of New York v. Gindele, 1 st Dist. No. C - 090251, 2010 - Ohio -

542 Trust: CWALT Alternative Loan Trust 2006 - 40T1 “A thorough review of the record reveals that the sole indication o f its interest as mortgagee is an afteracquired assignment; and the bank failed to produce any evidence in the trial court affirmatively establishing a preexisting interest. Bank of New York has also asserted both that it had acted as an agent, and that it s predecessor in interest had later ratified its foreclosure complaint. But because at the time of filing neither agency nor ratification had been alleged or documented, we will not entertain this argument on appeal.” Bank of NY v. Cupo, 2012 WL 611849 (N. J.Super.App. Div. 2011) Motion to vacate default judgment was reversed for further findings on issue of standing, suggesting that lack of standing might make a judgment void, rather than treating standing as waived by default judgment. Bank of New York v. Mulligan, Index 29399/07 (August 25, 2010) Trust: CWALT 2006 - OC1 11

Mortgage Amount: $392,000 Bank’s application for an order of reference was denied without prejudice. “The Court will grant plaintiff, BNY an order of reference when it presents: an affidav it by either an officer of BNY or someone with a valid power of attorney from BNY, possessing personal knowledge of the facts; an affidavit from EJy Harless clarifying his employment history for the past three years and what corporation he serves as an off icer; and, an affidavit by an officer of BNY, explaining why BNY would purchase a nonperforming loan from MERS, as nominee for DECISION ONE.” Bank of New York v. Myers, Index 18236/2008 (February 23, 2009) Trust: CWABS 2006 - 22 The Bank’s summary judgment motion was denied, but within 60 days of the decision, the Bank was required to submit an Affidavit from Keri Selman explaining her employment history for the past three years and why Selman did not have a conflict of interest as the signor of many entitie s. Bank of New York v. Orosco, 2007 NY SLIP OP 31501(U) (November 19, 2007) Trust: CWABS, Series 2006 -

SD2 Mortgage Amount: $436,000 “Plaintiff must address a second matter if it applies for an order of reference after demonstrating that the alleged assignment was recorded. Plaintiff’s application is the third application for an order of 12 reference received by me in the past several days that contain an affidavit from Keri Selman. In the instant action, she alleges to be an Assistant Vice - president of the Bank of New York. On November 16,2007, I denied an application for an order of reference in which Keri Selman, in her affidavit of merit claims to be "Vice President of COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, Attorney in fact for BANK OF NEW YORK." The Court is con cerned that Ms. Selman might be engaged in a subterfuge, wearing various corporate hats. Before granting an application for an order of reference, the Court requires an affidavit from Ms. Selman describing her employment history for the past three years.” Bank of New York v. Raftogianis, 13 A.3d 435 (2010), 418 N.J.Super. 323 Trust: American Home Mort. Investment Trust 2004 - 4

Mortgage Amount: $1,380,000 “Plaintiff, however, failed to establish that it was entitled to enforce the note as of the time the comp laint was filed. In this case, there are no compelling reasons to permit plaintiff to proceed in this action. Accordingly, the complaint has been dismissed. That dismissal is without prejudice to plaintiff's right to institute a new action to foreclose at any time, provided that any new complaint must be accompanied by an appropriate certification, executed by one with personal knowledge of the circumstances, confirming that plaintiff is in possession of the original note as of the date any new action is fi led. That certification must indicate the physical location of the note and the name of the individual or entity in possession.” Bank of New York v. Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 926 N.Y.S.2d 532 (2d Dept 2011) 13 Trust: CWALT 2007 - 14 - T2

Mortgage Amount: $479,0 00 “In sum, because MERS was never the lawful holder or assignee of the notes described and identified in the consolidation agreement, the corrected assignment of mortgage is a nullity, and MERS was without authority to assign the power to foreclose to the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to show that it had standing to foreclose.” Bank of New York Mellon v. Teague, Case No. 27 - 2009 - CA - 003121, Hernando Co. FL 2012 Trust: Novastar Mortgage Funding Trust 2005 - 1 “Second, to be entitled to foreclos e, Plaintiff had to have been the holder of the Note and Mortgage at the time it filed this lawsuit. The undisputed, summary judgment evidence before the Court was that Plaintiff was not the holder at the inception of this case as Plaintiff did not have the original Note in its possession when it filed suit and the Note did not contain the requisite endorsement. The fact that Plaintiff filed what it contends is an original note on June 28, 2012

does not change this result, as the endorsement on that Note is to a different company, not Plaintiff, and even if the Note had been properly endorsed, the fact that Plaintiff may have been the holder as of June, 2012 does not change its lack of standing at the inception of this case... The motion is granted and this case is dismissed without prejudice.” (cites omitted) Bank of New York v. Trezza, 14 Misc. 3d 1201(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 52367(U) 14 Trust: CWABS 2004 - 5 “In support of its motion, the plaintiff submits a purported assignment of the mortgage from MERS to the plaintiff; however, the mortgage does not empower MERS to assign the mortgage to any other entity. Furthermore, there is no proof that the Lender had previously assigned the mortgage to MERS, nor is there any other evidence to establish the plaintiff's own ership rights under the mortgage. Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff has failed to establish that it has standing as a plaintiff in this matter.” Bank of New York v. Singh, Index No. 22434/2007, Kings County (December 14, 2007)

Trust: CWABS, Series 2004 - 6 An order of reference was denied where the mortgage assignment was executed on June 28, 2007, with an antedated effective date of May 31, 2007. Suit was commenced on June 20, 2007. Judge Kurtz found that such an attempt to retroactively assign the m ortgage was insufficient to establish plaintiff’s ownership interest at the time the action was commenced. Bank of New York v. Torres, Index No. 31704/2006, Kings County ( March 11, 2008) Trust: CWABS 2005 - 6 “ORDERED that the plaintiff’s ex parte applicatio n for an Order of Reference in Mortgage Foreclosure is 15 denied without prejudice to renew due to plaintiffs failure to demonstrate its ownership of the note and mortgage sufficient to convey standing upon this plaintiff to commence this lawsuit on Novemb er 13,2006...” Beaumont v. Bank of New York Mellon,

81 So.3d 553,554 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012) Trust: NovaStar Mortgage Funding Trust 2005 - 3 Summary judgment for bank reversed and remanded. “There is no evidence showing that Beaumont was on notice prior to the time his answer was filed that ownership of the note had been transferred from NovaStar to Mellon. In fact, the claimed transfer, alleged to have occurred on the day suit was filed, was either concealed by NovaStar for more than three years while it co ntinued to pursue the action, or NovaStar backdated the assignment it finally produced on July 23, 2010, as justification for substituting Mellon as plaintiff. Under these circumstances, Beaumont may raise lack of standing when suit was filed as a defense. ” Congress v. U.S. Bank, 2100934, AL Ct. Civ. App . Trust: 2007 - EMX1 Mortgage Amount: $104,400 “The trial court should have evaluated the issue whether the allonge had been created after the first trial under the preponderance - of

- the - evidence standard. Beca use it used the higher clear - andconvincing - evidence standard to evaluate Congress's evidence, this court has no choice but to reverse the 16 trial court's judgment and remand the cause to the trial court for it to evaluate the evidence adduced at trial un der the appropriate standard of proof.” Cutler v. U.S. Bank, N.A., Case No. 2D10 - 5709 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) Trust: Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust, 2006 - BNC3 Summary judgment for Bank reversed and remanded. “Accordingly, a genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether U.S. Bank was the proper holder of the note at the time it initiated the foreclosure action. The note includes the allonge endorsed in blank, but the allonge is not dated. If

indeed U.S. Bank cannot establish that the allonge to ok effect prior to the date of the complaint, it did not have standing to bring suit... Because a genuine issue of material fact remains, the trial court erred in entering a final summary judgment.” Davenport v. HSBC Bank USA, 739 N.W.2d 383 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) “In this case, defendant did not own the mortgage or an interest in the mortgage on October 27, 2005. Nonetheless, defendant proceeded to commence foreclosure proceedings at that time. Quite simply, defendant did not yet own the indebtedness that it sought to foreclose. The circuit court erred by determining that defendant's noncompliance with the statutory requirements did not nullify the foreclosure proceedings. Because defendant lacked the statutory authority to foreclose, the foreclosure proceedin gs were void ab initio. We vacate the foreclosure 17 proceedings and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion .” Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.v. Alemany, Index: 11677/2007

(N.Y. Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. 2008) Trust: Soundview Home Loan Trust, 2006 - OPT3 “ORDERED that plaintiffs ex parte application for an Order of Reference is denied without prejudice to resubmit due to plaintiffs failure to provide: ... (2) proof on standing to commence this action as it appears plaintiff did not own the note and mortgage when the action was commenced...” Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Barnett, 88 A.D.3d 636, 931 N.Y.S.2d 630 Trust: FFMLT 2005 - FF11 Summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of bank reversed. “However, the documentation submitted failed to est ablish that, prior to commencement of the action, the plaintiff was the holder or assignee of both the note and mortgage. The plaintiff submitted copies of two different versions of an undated allonge which was purportedly affixed to the original note purs uant to UCC 3 - 202 (2). Moreover, these allonges purporting to endorse the note from First Franklin, a Division of National City

Bank of Indiana (hereinafter Franklin of Indiana) to the plaintiff conflict with the copy of the note submitted, which contains undated endorsements from Franklin of Indiana to First Franklin Financial Corporation (hereinafter Franklin Financial), then from Franklin Financial in blank. 18 “...The plaintiff also failed to establish that the note was physically delivered to it prior to the commencement of this action.” Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Bialobrzeski, 3 A.3d 183 (Conn App. Ct. 2010) Trust: Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006 - 3 The judgment for the trust was reversed and the case was remanded for a hearing on the mot ion to dismiss. “The key to resolving the defendant's claim is a determination of when the note came into the plaintiff's possession. We cannot review the claim because Judge Domnarski made no factual finding as to when the plaintiff acquired the note. Wit hout that factual determination, we are unable to say whether Judge Domnarski improperly denied the defendant's motion to dismiss. Although it is the appellant's responsibility to provide an adequate record for

review; see Practice Book §§ 60 - 5 and 61 - 10; that cannot be the end of the matter because it concerns the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Brumbaugh, 2012 OK 3, 270 P.3d 151 Trust: Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2002 - 1 Summary judgment for bank reversed and remanded. “To commence a foreclosure action in Oklahoma, a plaintiff must demonstrate it has a right to enforce the note and, absent a showing of ownership, the plaintiff lacks standing... Being a person entitled to enforce the note is an essent ial requirement to initiate a 19 foreclosure lawsuit. In the present case, there is a question of fact as to when Appellee became a holder, and thus, a person entitled to enforce the note. Therefore, summary judgment is not appropriate. If Deutsche Bank be came a person entitled to enforce the note as either a holder or nonholder in possession who has the rights of a holder after the foreclosure action was filed, then the case may be dismissed without prejudice and the action may be re

- filed in the name of t he proper party. We reverse the granting of summary judgment by the trial court and remand back for further determinations as to when Appellee acquired its interest in the note.” (cites omitted) Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Byrams, 2012 OK 4, 275 P. 3d 129 Trust: Argent Securities, Inc. ABPT Certs., Series 2006 - W2 Mortgage amount: $526,320 Summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of bank reversed and remanded. “The assignment of a mortgage is not the same as an assignment of the note. If a person is trying to establish it is a nonholder in possession who has the rights of a holder it must bear the burden of establishing its status as a nonholder in possession with the rights of a holder. Appellee must establish delivery of the note as well as the purp ose of that delivery. In the present case, it appears Appellee is trying to use the assignment of mortgage in order to establish the purpose of delivery. The assignment of mortgage purports to transfer "the following described mortgage, securing the paymen t of a certain promissory note(s) for the sum listed below, together

20 with all rights therein and thereto, all liens created or secured thereby, all obligations therein described, the money due and to become due thereon with interest, and all rights accr ued or to accrue under such mortgage." This language has been determined by other jurisdictions to not effect an assignment of a note but to be useful only in identifying the mortgage. Therefore, this language is neither proof of transfer of the note nor p roof of the purpose of any alleged transfer.” (cites omitted) Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Cabaroy, Index: 9245/2007 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. 2008) Trust: New Century Home Equity Loan Trust, 2006 - 1 “ORDERED that the plaintiffs ex parte applica tion for an Order of Reference in Mortgage Foreclosure is denied without prejudice to resubmit due to plaintiffs failure to provide: (1) proof of plaintiffs standing to commence this action;” Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Castellanos, 2008 NY Slip Op 50033(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2008) Trust: Argent Mort. Sec., Inc. ABPT Certs., Series 2005

- W4 Mortgage Amount: $382,500