The upshot is that REMIC Trusts are ficitious names for the underwriters of bogus mortgage bonds issued in the name of a nonexistent REMIC Trust. It is the product of a disguised boiler room operation. Neither personal nor subject matter jurisdiction can possible apply. Thus claims brought in the name of a putative REMIC Trust are void, ab initio.
This is dense in its complexity. Jurisdiction consists of (1) personal jurisdiction (2) subject matter jurisdiction and (3) both personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Confusion first arises by use of the word "jurisdiction" without specifying what they are talking about.
Personal jurisdiction can be and usually is waived --- as long as the party involved actually exists (see below). You can't waive personal jurisdiction if you don't legally exist --- and a court can't waive or ignore it because that would be re-writing the statute on jurisdiction.
Subject matter jursidiction exists only by statute. each court is given a scope of jurisdiction (like small claims, general civil litigation, complex civil litigation, etc).
If a foreign entity seeks judicial remedy in the state of Minnesota it must therefore exist, and the Defendant must be either a citizen of that state or have substantial contacts for the long-arm statute to apply. The subject matter would be a contract that took place within the state of Minnesota or which holds that the laws of the state of Minnesota apply.
The locus of trust assets are irrelevant UNLESS the assets are the subject matter of litigation. The Trust does not contain real estate. It contains (taking their assertions as true for the moment) paper or written instruments --- and by extension the trust is presumed to own the debts, which it doesn't and never did.
If the foreign entity does not exist then it can bring no action in any court. Being non-exixstent does not necessarily mean that it was a made-up name of a fictitious entity (frequently the case where REMIC Trusts are invented and named under New York common law). It could be the name of an entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. But in Minnesota the entity is stripped of its right to claim existence unless (1) it is enforcing a loan or (2) it is an unregistered and not permitted to do business, to make or defend any claim.
In the case of the trusts, this becomes more convoluted. A Trust exists ONLY if it has ALL the elements of a Trust. Trustor, Trust instrument, Beneficiaries and the res or property (or money) entrusted to a named Trustee in the Trust instrument. If such assets have been entrusted (by the Trustor) to the named Trustee to be administered in accordance with the terms of the Trust instrument, for the benefit of the named beneficiaries, then the Trust legally exists.
But when it goes to Minnesota and seeks foreclosure remedies it is a foreign entity, generally unregistered to do business in MN. WHile there are exceptions in every state for lenders, the statute of MN would need to be scrutinized to see if the REMIC Trust, which had no business performed by the Trust in MN, can still bring a claim for relief (foreclosure sale and/or judgment) under MN law.
And if the Trust does not have all the elements it simply does not exist in law or in fact. Thus no action should be brought in the name of a fictitiously named nonexistent entity. Work on the principal using the fictitious name, which is also unregistered anywhere, would reveal that the named "Trust" is merely a fictitious name employed by the underwriter of bogus mortgage bonds to investors. Living Lies Team
