demurrer

Posted on November 23, 2008 by Neil Garfield

demurrer

Filed under: |

«

10 Responses

  1. WARREN, on October 15, 2013 at 1:01 am said:

    DAVID STERN TRIAL IS OVER AND WE AWAIT JUDGE NANCY PEREZ DECISION. WHERE WAS THE MEDIA AND THE HOMEOWNERS??
    I JUST DONT GET IT…I HOPE JUDGE PEREZ HUNGS THIS S.O.B.

  2. CoCo, on April 23, 2011 at 9:40 am said:

    To Mike J.Please google MERRIGAN VS BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON-a suit filed by the ACLU on behalf of this client in Lee county, Florida.

  3. Mike J., on April 14, 2011 at 11:37 pm said:

    Trying to save my home, I contacted California Foreclosure Defense Program; they recommend a Securitization audit and a Forensics audit in order to uncover al the Tila, Respa, etc. violations and then use them as leverage to renegotiate the loan or even get the deed in lieu of payment….Your thoughts?

  4. Sui Juris 249, on January 10, 2011 at 2:13 pm said:

    Remember, since your “lender” is just a servicer, they do not own the note. They
    do not have the right to enforce the note. They can only act as a servicing agent.

    Please refer to U.S. Code Title 12: Banks and Banking, Part 226 – Truth in
    Lending (Regulation Z). This is enclosed in the Appendix for your convenience.
    These are codified laws of banking. It defines who a Lender is, and the rights of
    a Servicer. Specifically, it refers in 226 (a) 1 that a servicer is not treated as the
    owner of the obligation.

    (a) Scope. The disclosure requirements of this section apply to any
    covered person except as otherwise provided in this section. For
    purposes of this section:
    (1) A “ covered person ” means any person, as defined in §226.2(a)(22),
    that becomes the owner of an existing mortgage loan by acquiring legal
    title to the debt obligation, whether through a purchase, assignment, or
    other transfer, and who acquires more than one mortgage loan in any
    twelve-month period. For purposes of this section, a servicer of a
    mortgage loan shall not be treated as the owner of the obligation if the
    servicer holds title to the loan or it is assigned to the servicer solely for
    the administrative convenience of the servicer in servicing the obligation.

    You will also note that the scope does not cover the servicer if the servicer was
    assigned the note for administrative convenience in servicing the obligation.
    This means, the servicer is not treated and does not have the rights of a lender
    (or owner of the obligation).

  5. Gary, on November 11, 2010 at 1:32 am said:

    Dear sir , If a summary judgement is granted, in favor of these crooks, now I’m learning that my mortgage is held by Mers as mortgagee of record and BNC the Lender. I am 11 days from facing a summary judgement. I guess I can’t ask them now to prove their legal standing and show me the note? What can I do? Please help if you can.

  6. macdaddy, on October 4, 2009 at 11:35 am said:

    Mary threatening phone calls and illegal deadlines and not representing they are calling to collect a dept in the language prescribed by law hmmm you konw thats a thousand dollar call per call and if you file in federal court you will have them on thier heels before during or after your suit for more info go to ruleoflawradio.com archives “Rule of law show” 09/25/09 and (10/02/09 is very good).now go kick thier butts!

  7. George, on February 23, 2009 at 1:41 am said:

    I” am trying to absorb all information as it becomes available, perhaps attorneys who “get it” can link to other attorneys who they know to be interested in the truth and who are willing to jump on board. Also, if everyone could, in their comments, let viewers know which state their case(s) is/are in for reference. For instance, I find it unsettling that there has been almost no mention of Pennsylvania, where I am. Someone could have a field day here, I am going to try to get to the courthouse on sale day and see what goes on, read the notices, listen to the (uncontested) home stealing.

  8. livinglies, on December 8, 2008 at 3:32 pm said:

    When you have nothing left, the only strategy is intimidation. Don’t be intimidated – YOU and your friend are in the driver’s seat.

  9. Mary Mazurette, on December 7, 2008 at 9:27 pm said:

    I am avid reader of your website and I’ve made comments here, also. I’m helping a friend fight a foreclosure here in California. So far, we have had the judge stay an unlawful detainer because the lender ignored our rescission letter and sold the home. The lenders hired the same attorneys that you show on the sample demurrer, to fight against our case for quiet title and declaratory relief. The demurrer in our case was overruled by the judge, so now the attorneys are calling my friend to tell him he’s going to lose the case. They told him that everything he reads on all the lawyer forums, etc. are lies. He told my friend there is no such 20-day time limit to respond to a rescission letter and no one has ever won such a case. I told my friend that if that were true then the judge would have thrown the case out already and he would not have stayed the unlawful detainer. I find it funny that the attorneys lost the demurrer so now they call to harrass my friend.

  10. Steve Dibert, on November 26, 2008 at 10:03 pm said:

    I had an attorney for Bear Stearns pull this stunt on me when I sent a QWR to them on behalf of the client. Bear Stearns tried to claim that because I wasn’t a principal in the case they didn’t have to give me me the file. My client showed the judge the retention agreement between the me and the client that I sent to Bear Stearns and the judge gave them 5 days to give us everything out of the file or dismiss the foreclosure. They dismissed the foreclosure.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: