For more information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688
This is for general information only. It should never be used as a substitute for the advice of an attorney licensed in the jurisdiction in which your property is located.
==============================
see also 201306_cfpb_laws-and-regulations_tila-combined-june-2013
I’ve been busy dealing with Judges who are resisting meritorious defenses and proactive lawsuits challenging the validity of the mortgage, note, debt or assignments. I had one Judge order me to remove America’s Wholesale Lender — an entity that doesn’t exist — as a party Defendant.
But an increasing number of homeowners are seeking to challenge, rescind, or otherwise put the pretender lenders on defense, along with the “servicers” who have no authority and question the enforceability of a modification agreement in which the countersigning party is a “servicer” with dubious or nonexistent rights to enforce a modification agreement.
This is reminiscent of when I wrote in 2008 that the Courts are getting it wrong about rescission. I said then that rescission is a specific statutory remedy which is clear on its face and not subject to interpretation that the “borrower” is getting a free house. I said that applying common law rules on rescission was wrong. There was no requirement for the homeowner to file suit and no requirement for the homeowner to tender money to the “lender” (who can’t be known because of the lack of disclosure). Hundreds of state and Federal Courts all the way up to the appellate level disagreed with me. But I stuck to my guns and continued to advance the legal theory that the statute was explicit and that Courts did not have the right to legislate from the bench.
The US Supreme Court eventually agreed with me recently overturning hundreds of final judgments, orders on dismissal and discovery. The effective on past cases is not yet known. If they have already been concluded right through sale it might be that local law might make the wrong decision final anyway. But my opinion is that if we go by what the statute says, once the notice of rescission was sent, the mortgage and note were nullified “by operation of law.” And the effect is simple: there can be no foreclosure on a mortgage and note that don’t legally exist, even if the mortgage is still recorded in the chain of title. Closings — even short sales — are cast into doubt as to whether the title or the money was handled properly.
As a result, the general consensus about the borrower was turned on its head. The “enforcement” of the rescission was not required by the borrower, it was required to be challenged within 20 days of the notice of rescission. The tender of money by the borrower is similarly turned on its head — it is the lender who owes money (a lot of it) to the borrower. And the threat of foreclosure is totally removed. The statute of limitations doesn’t just apply to borrowers. it also applies to “lenders.” Once the borrower gives notice of rescission, the “lender” must file a declaratory action contesting the rescission within 20 days. If they don’t file that action, they waive any potential defense to the rescission.
Many individuals are sending notices of rescission even on old loans based upon the premise that they only recently discovered the defects in the loan and defects in the loan closing procedures. If the lender fails to file a lawsuit saying that they are a “lender” and where they prove their status as a lender, they lose. If they can’t prove that the disclosures at closing were true and correct within the tolerances specified in the statute (TILA), they lose. If they fail to file within 20 days, they lose.
The requirement that the “lender” record a satisfaction of mortgage and return the canceled note is just to make it easier for the homeowner to get alternative financing. And the requirement that the “lender” disgorge or pay all money paid in the origination of the loan including brokers’ fees, together with all payments of interest and principal was also teeth in the law to level the playing field, reducing the amount that the homeowner might need to pay to the lender LATER.
The idea behind the law was to address predatory or wrongful lending or enforcement tactics by banks whose dubious business plans were far too sophisticated for any normal borrower to understand what was really happening. TILA and Regulation Z were written to level the playing field. Once the borrower discovered material defects in the loan or loan procedure, they are allowed to get rid of that loan and go get another loan. The primary impact, from a legal point of view, is that the mortgage is gone “by operation of law” and the note is nullified, leaving a bare debt for the “lender” to allege and prove. But whatever the debt might be, it is UNSECURED, and thus subject to discharge in bankruptcy.
Rescission is a drastic remedy that puts the “bank” at a spectacular disadvantage. But it is the law. and the same holds true when you have fatal defects in the origination of the loan. If the named lender doesn’t exist or didn’t make the loan, the note and mortgage should not have been released to anyone, much less recorded. That means that the mortgage was essentially a wild deed. The mortgage is not voidable, it is void. And THAT means, just like in the case of rescission that the mortgage must be removed from the chain of title on the property. Like rescission, the note and mortgage are void or nullified by operation of law, if the Judges would only apply it.
My group has several of these cases on appeal and we are confident that the appellate courts will turn the corner on proactive cases where the homeowner is current on the so-called payments due (and which are extracted under threat of enforcement and foreclosure). The current thinking of the courts in many cases is neither based in fact nor logic. If the borrower is declared in default they are regarded as deadbeats. If they are current, they are regarded as greedy deadbeats. We think that like several cases have already shown, the “servicer” or “lender” will be forced to defend cases that were dismissed by trial judges.
In the end, we think that homeowners will not only get rid of the note and mortgage, but potentially also the debt because only someone who actually did the funding could come forward with a legal or equitable claim for unjust enrichment. Such creditors will have a difficult time making the claim because (a) they don’t know anything about the case and (b) in order to do so they would be required to track and prove the money trail to show that they are in fact the creditors. Modifications by volunteer intermeddlers — like servicers who lack actual authority to service the loan because they are relying on the Trust that is falsely claiming ownership of the loan — will in our opinion also be deemed a nullity.
Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: canceled note, chain of title, disgorgement by lender to borrower, liability for debt, modifications, nullification of mortgage, nullification of note, proactive mortgage challenges, rescission, satisfaction of mortgage, TILA rescission |
Rock just curious.
The thing that they have that We the people are lacking is ORGANIZATION.You can take all the folks in every part of the country that are getting paid via county,city,state,fed,etc and every lawyer and any one who is on the take and it may add up to maybe a million heads,yet the other 299 million Americans cant seem to get it together to INSIST that their raping of this countries people stop this minute.That too is what the founding fathers said”If we the people dont enforce our own laws,dont expect the phony lawmakers to enforce them for us when they are profiting and thinking that their place in history is better than yours or mine or the next guys,well until we say so it is.Good luck
@ Christine,
Unfortunately, for the time-being, I feel taxes are necessary.
At the moment, American service women and men are occupied across every nook and cranny of the known world and somebody has to pay for it.
I will stand on what I have described as the merits of my solution, with one caveat:
Our system will only survive while protected by the rule of law.
@ Christine,
Unfortunately, for the time-being, I feel taxes are necessary.
At the moment, American service women and men are occupied across every nook and cranny of the known world and somebody has to pay for it.
I will stand on what I have described as the merits of my solution, with one caveat:
Our system will only survive while protected by the rule of law.
At the moment there is zero accountability and that needs to change.
I suggest We start by protecting ourselves vis-a-vis banker predation. I then feel we should make voting mandatory and a failure to do so a criminal offense. I then feel We should eject “Citizens United” and corporate pandering into the garbage can where it belongs. I then feel We should provide for our soldiers, marines and airmen…
There is plenty to do and the tax man is not the enemy, the bankers that have corrupted the system are.
@ Louise,
Thank you.
I feel the “world populace” could use a good dose of banker and banker lawyer incarceration.
I also feel there is more than enough money (682 Trillion, in fact) to go around.
Unfortunately, that money is projected to land in the wrong hands; the hands of those that concocted this obscenity from the beginning.
The American Dollar and the Promise of the American Dream are only left intact should prosecutions begin immediately.
Derivatives are subject to accounting and the rule of numbers; Democracy, no less.
This country rests upon the structures inherent to the rule of law.
I say: renounce the bankers, unwind the derivatives; remediate the damage done; enrich the victims at banker expense…
Recapture the 682 trillion in hyper-inflationary, worthless Federal Reserve notes by reinvigorating the “Greenback” (created by Abraham Lincoln, under more trying times than these and presently still available to the American populace in the Treasury as an alternative currency).
It is called “Currency” for a reason: for it to retain its power it must, like an electric circuit, travel in a loop. In other words, it must have a point of origin and a point of return.
So, let’s return the derivatives bets into possession of the rightful owners: those who were defrauded at the origination; whether that origination be a phony closing on a phony “loan”; or, a purchase, by the investors of a phony “mortgage-backed security” that was originated as an investment in a phony pool of loans.
In short, return the power of the currency back into its rightful ownership, the American people, not private bankers.
Then, we can begin closing all kinds of open loops…
Plant more acorns, we’re gonna need more trees.
Great post, Michael. You have explained the greatest scam in history so it can be understood. Fiat money always goes down and goes down spectacularly. Read the history of the Weimar Republic in Germany. Although, the demon that has raised its head now is deflation, because the world populace no longer has much money to buy anything.
Reblogged this on patrickainsworth.
Michael,
You want change? April 15th is right around the corner. What will you do? Feed into the problem or stand firm on moral grounds? We live in a country where the social contract was long ago breached unilaterally by public servants who opted to serve the banks rather than their constituents. Take your stand.
There is no “We the people”. Only individuals taking a stand. When enough of them do, change will come. This blog isn’t the forum for it. This blog is the cheapest therapy couch people who don’t take action flock to.
The simple fact of the matter is: The central bankers, the world-over are already insolvent.
682 Trillion Dollars is an impossible sum.
People smarter than me have already qualified it and quantified it.
So… do We The People ignore the criminal behavior and abandon the rule of law… or, do We demand an accounting of the derivatives placed as “short sales” against our ability to pay loans that have already been satisfied through Tarp, insurances, guarantors third-party payments, etc…
It would be one thing if the notes still existed…
It would be one thing if the banks hadn’t created forgeries…
It would be one thing if the banks even knew which loans they themselves were in possession of…
It would be one thing if the banks hadn’t created a deliberate “Boom-and-Bust Cycle”; Subprime Lending immediately followed by derivatives FRAUD…
It would be one thing if the banks hadn’t manipulated the modifications…
It would be one thing if the banks hadn’t created “Bucket Trusts”…
It would be one thing if the banks hadn’t created false testimony…
It would be one thing if the banks hadn’t intentionally preyed upon the pension system…
It would be one thing if the banks hadn’t preyed upon institutional investors…
It would be one thing if the banks hadn’t foreclosed on service-women and men fighting a bogus misadventure they themselves created in Iraq…
… It would be ONE thing…
At what point do We, as a nation, finally show these criminal filth to the door… ?
How many more reasons do We The People Need to incarcerate these filth????
David,
As far as I know, I’m the only one on this site who’s won a case in federal court against the servicer on proven allegations, got damages and all attorney fees, changed the landscape for thousands nationwide, isn’t in foreclosure and has nothing to gain from coming here. I did what I advocated all along: attack on accounting. Only thing I know to really work. Anything else, any “big” verdict, has, thus far, been appealed and overturned.
In fact, I seem to have a lot to lose sticking around, starting with my time, better spent with people looking for real help and willing to listen and follow advice.
Call me troll, shill and whatever you wish if it makes you feel like a man. I get results. People I help get results. Once they do, they don’t come back here. I do because somewhere, i still believe there is one more person I can impact positively. Reading the prose here, I’m not so sure.
So have at it. And good luck.
In my experience, it is almost impossible to find an attorney particularly if you lack material evidence… frankly, even armed with evidence of criminal activity, the attorneys do everything they can to dissuade you from asserting your rights…
As a result, therefore, I urge everyone to visit the attorney they used at closing, to arrive, unannounced, in order to collect that attorney’s file, on their house. It may be that wonderful surprises, from a discovery standpoint, may thereafter ensue…
Of course, the commuter communities that border New York, daily send their sons and daughters off to participate in the criminal contrivance that is Wall Street. This is one of the reasons why the naysayers will continue, into infinity, denouncing anyone with a conscience and willingness to endure the fight……
…Even as Wall Street is controlled through the regional New York Central Bank- the bank that controls the other regional Central Banks (of which, altogether, there are 12) – with the deciding vote controlled by none other than Jamie Dimon.
As part of the Federal Reserve System, the New York Fed holds control, with 50% of the vote, on how the 12 regional, central banks operate … and Jamie Dimon sits on the board as chairman, if I recall correctly…
Although, by now, he may be stashed, out of sight somewhere…
It is also true that most of the phony trusts, holding phony claims to forged or non-existent titles, operate under New York laws; after all, Manhattan is the clearinghouse for most of these bogus pools of loans masquerading as operating under legitimate bonds for mortgage-backed securities, which are really simply counterfeits and best-described as trusts predicated upon “Phony Securities that actually own zero interests in any of the mortgages they were told supported their investment in the first place” (IMHO).
Fonzi now shills for reverse mortgages with his actor pal, Fred Thompson and their whole act is anything but “COOL” as titles are now and will forever be, hopelessly corrupted (IMHO).
The new, Republican congress wasted no time whatsoever placing the American Taxpayers on the hook for losses incurred by the banks due to their altogether irresponsible speculations in any number of derivatives frauds…
The Democrats are no better and the Attorney General, Eric Holder, once worked for the law firm that helped legitimize “The Mortgage Electronic Registration System”.
The emphasis, across-the-board, is to conceal the fact none of the titles to any of the homes across the nation are legitimate (IMHO).
Insofar as the insolvency of the banks…? I think the master of fairy tales described it best many years ago: “The Emperor Has No Clothes”.
The banks… by any standard of measurement… are already insolvent…
This is particularly true of the central bank; the intentionally mislabeled, “Federal Reserve” (neither “Federal” while operated by private bankers that are offered shares in the Fed, with guaranteed rates of return of 6%- nor possessed of any “Reserves” while issuing currency predicated upon debt, out-of-thin-air, created on computer screens).
Shares that are not offered to the public with guaranteed rates of return of 6% make the central banking system a private endeavor that operates with a profit… period.
End Of Story.
Of course, American Taxpayers have been deceived since 1913 (the year of the inception of the Federal Reserve Act and also the year the 16th Amendment was created as designed to collect income taxes on personal wealth so that the private bankers in the intentionally mislabeled central bank, the “Federal Reserve” would have a steady stream of income through which to control their deliberate system of debt slavery).
The President, at the time was Woodrow Wilson. I find it beyond mere description he took to his bed for the final years of his presidency as a manic depressive once he figured out he had been duped by agebts of the English “Aristocracy”…
“Aristocracy”… as if there is even such a thing. A few miles from me is a road marker where Captain Samuel Allen hanged a dozen of the supporters of a notion such as “nobility, born of blood”; it is disgraceful and a mockery of the human condition.
It seems tedious to have to explain the Founding Fathers never intended a tax ever be levied on personal wealth… after all, they had just fought the largest military-industrial complex of their time to a standstill to renounce that type of behavior… and it wasn’t all about fake Indians dumping corporate proceeds into Boston Harbor…
Although nowadays, anybody with half a brain realizes it would serve Humanity best if the entire Corpratocracy could be taken to Massachusettes and dumped in Boston Harbor.
And yet, this British system of central banking, hand-in-hand with “free trade agreements”, now, once-again holds sway over most of the financial centers of the planet through the IMF and World Bank.
In the US, under this system, a typical mortgage of 100,000 dollars, allows the bank that originated that mortgage to go to their regional Federal Reserve, if they are shareholders… and then… that regional Federal Reserve waves a magic wand and allows that bank to go out and create an additional 900,000 dollars of loans predicated upon debt… debt, by the way that is created on a computer screen…
After all, a truck doesn’t pull up in front of the bank that created the original loan and drop off 1 million dollars… instead, the money is created by “fiat” (a French word that really may stand in for “Abra-Cadabra”- it literally means “let it be so”).
It is brought into being on a computer screen; as such, the first question should leap into any reasonable person’s mind and ask: If banks are creating our money this way, shouldn’t our government be doing it instead?
The next question should follow: As a reasonable person, I understand taxes are necessary… so… why don’t We The People abandon and renounce the Federal Reserve System and then re-create it as a type of public utility?
That way, taxes may be paid into the PUBLIC TREASURY AND NOT PRIVATE POCKETS.
Creating debts owed to them, as a minority portion of society as a whole, is but one of the entitlements the private bankers in this fraudulent system enjoy and it is called “Fractional Reserve” Lending with a ratio of return of 10-to1. In Britain it is called… the “ Force Multiplier” or some such catchy phrase. At the moment, I forget which.
Another benefit to the private bankers is their ability to collect US Treasury Bonds, essentially for free, to be used as the collateral as “principal” owed on the debts they create for us out-of-thin-air.
Of course, We The People pay very real Federal Reserve Dollars to underwrite this T-Bond Principal while our government allows the private bankers to attach those payments as a by-product of our salaries and taxes…
In fact, the “principal” owed on our debt hasn’t been “paid-off” or even “paid-down” since the time of Andrew Jackson.
President Bill Clinton merely kept pace with the “interest” owed to the debt on that “principal” during his years as President… most people are familiar with that “interest” while it is often described as a 16 Trillion Dollar “Deficit”… for those who are not… Surprise!!! The “Deficit” (now-unsustainable) is merely the visible part of the iceburg looming on the horizon.
Of course, by now, We The People all realize President Clinton traded his dignity and his legacy to his masters, the central bankers… through his cooperation in participating in the criminal contrivance that is the Graham-Leach-Blighley Act…
So, what do you advocate, Neil? A free house, or free money? The rescission requires a lawsuit because unless the court orders it, the lender or oobi (owner of beneficial interest in the note) will refuse to nullify the deal. The lender already disbursed funds in exchange for the note, and the borrower already possesses the mortgaged property. But, the lender did not provide the mortgaged property to the borrower. Rescission means “make the parties whole as before the transaction.” That means they must return to one another what they received from one another.
Thus, the borrower must return the money received from the lender, and the lender or oobi must return the money received from the borrower. This might leave a question about the money accepted by the servicer and spent on insurance, taxes, and other escrow items on behalf of the borrower. The borrower would have had to spend the taxes anyway, and probably the insurance, unless force-placed at exorbitant rates. And then there’s the expense of the servicer’s operation. Will the court look at all of those costs as the obligation of the lender/oobi, or of the borrower. The court must sort that out, and that’s another reason the borrower must sue for rescission.
But beyond doubt, the borrower must return the lender’s money and the lender must return the borrower’s money. When the court does the arithmetic on this, it will subtract what the borrower has already paid from what the lender gave the borrower, and the borrower must pay that amount. The typical borrower will plead for an order requiring the lender to accept some payment plan for returning the lender’s money. If the bank convinces the court not to accept the time payment plan, the borrower must sell the property to come up with the money. I believe the VAST majority of those who sought a rescission owe more to the bank than the present value of the property, even after deducting payments. That means in such cases the borrower will lose the house AND have to pull a bunch of money out of pocket in order to repay the lender back. Must such borrowers will forget about the rescission. What’s your recommendation for that?
Furthermore, if the borrower has lived in the property for years without making payments, the lender could at least claim that the property was effectively the lender’s (it says so in the security instrument), albeit the security instrument operates as a lien, and therefore, the borrower owes rent if not all the accrued unpaid interest. Why should the lender suffer financial penalty when the borrower made no effort to return the lender’s money upon giving notice of rescission?
Thus we have yet more reasons for the lawsuit – to accommodate the fair settlement and accounting. You, Neil, will have a hard time convincing the judge that the lender should shoulder all the financial burden of the borrower’s lethargy in effecting the rescission. Furthermore, apparently, ALL civil causes of action, including fraud, have some statute of limitations protecting the injurious party from a limitless threat of litigation for some injury. For mortgages it’s 5 years in Florida. What is it for rescission? The borrower must give notice within 3 years for refinances. Within how much time after that must the borrower give the money back, less the amount given to the lender? MOST such rescission opportunities have long since passed.
You keep making a big deal out of this, but frankly, I don’t think that many have sued for rescission, for a variety of reasons. First the underwater loans for most of the properties refinanced in the past 15 years. Second the obligation to return the lender’s money, necessitating a sale of the property for those without an underwater loan. Third the fact that TILA rescission is not available for purchase money loans. Fourth the fact that many if not most who really deserved a rescission filed suit within 3 years.
Yes the rescission interests a lot of people thinking about fighting foreclosures, but the SCOTUS ruling won’t affect many people.
Bob Hurt
Quoting Livinglies’s Weblog :
> Neil Garfield posted: “For more information please call 954-495-9867 or > 520-405-1688 This is for general information only. It should never be > used as a substitute for the advice of am attorney licensed in the > jurisdiction in which your property is located. ==============” > >
because you dont have any answer’s to what i have said. and have in my hands of all the fraud on homeowners. if you did you would say something about what i have.
Christine,
must be hard for you to find out, that there are smarter people out here, that know everything that that banks did. and they are laughing all the way to where they put the money. over sea’s’
and you will see me change it. so how is it working for the banks trolling around finding out what we know????
have a great day.
David,
Shout as much as you want. Win in court, make jurisprudence, change the landscape and I’ll listen.
Otherwise, loud noise is unpleasant to my ears and detrimental to homeowners. Done looking at screaming insanity.
CHRISTINE, I DO HAVE DOC’S FROM THE SECURITY AND EXCHANGE, SHOWING MY MORTGAGE AS PAYED OFF IN FEB,2,2006, AFTER 1 PAYMENT MADE, THEN I ALSO HAVE THE SEC DOC’S SHOWING THEM SELLING MY MORTGAGE FOR THE 500,000 DOLLARS WITH 1027 OTHER MORTGAGES.
FUNNY ISN’T IT. ALSO LETS SEE, FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE WAS IN AUG, 2012, K , GOT THAT.
FROM MERS ACTING FOR GMAC MORTGAGE CORP,( NO LONGER IN BUSINESS AS OF 2006!!! . FUNNY ISN’T IT…
SO WERE DID MERS GET THE AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN FOR ANYTHING AS GMAC MORTGAGE CORP/ WAS NO LONGER EXSISTING IN 2012??
TRUST CLOSED, FEB,27,2006. SO HOW COULD THE TRUST NOW TAKE THIS MORTGAGE??? HUM
BUT BEST OF ALL, AS I WROTE PRIOR, GMAC MORTGAGE SIGN MORTGAGE AND MORTGAGE NOTE TO ANOTHER BANK/TRUST AS OF THE SAME DAY AS WE SIGN AT CLOSING. HUM FUNNY!!
SO ALL I’VE DONE FOR THE PAST 4 YRS, 6HRS A DAY IS DIG AND DIG AND DIG.
I CAN SAY THIS. I DO NOT OWE ANYONE ANYTHING. THEY OWE ME. MILLIONS.
AND AS A VETERAN FOR OVER 6 YRS IN IN INFANTRY , ANYONE COMING ON MY PROPERTY. WELL LETS JUST SAY, I HOPE THEY DONT TRY.
SO WHAT YOU SAY??
After a loan closes, the original dot is sent off (often by the title co) for recordation. Where it goes after recordation is its own story. At any rate, when the loan file is shipped wherever it’s going, that file has to contain an executed copy of the dot. That copy is generally stamped with a ‘true and correct copy’ stamp and signed below that by the person who is certifying it as a true and correct copy. This is to stand in the stead of the original til it gets back from the recorder’s. I just happened on some instructions from a lender about those closing packages (as their called in the industry). They no longer want those
true and correct copy stamps on the dot copy. In fact, they make it a point to say don’t do it. My first thought was so that they could, if “need” be, try to foist the copy off as the original, but then I realized it still wouldn’t have the recorder’s stamp and info on it, which would belie it as the original. Anyone have any ideas why they no longer want that
certification on the dot copy?
Yes, David, they are full of it. They call you names as they steal your property and money. It has all been paid for in rotten Federal Reserve dollars. They do not have the documents to prove they (servicers/pretender Lenders) own your property. Insurance/insurers are in on the scam as well.
“NOW GMAC MORTGAGE SOLD MY MORTGAGE UP TO 30 TIMES FOR THE APPRAISEL PRICE OF 500,000 THOUSEND DOLLARS EACH TIME, ADD THAT UP.
THEY ALSO TOOK ALL OUR MORTGAGES TO TREASURY, AND RECEIVED UP TO 40 TIMES THE AMOUNT ON THE NOTE. SO A 350,000 DOLLAR MORTGAGE NOTE, THEY RECEIVE IN THERE ACCOUNTS AS MUCH AS 14,000,000. THATS 14 MILLION DOLLARS USEING OUR. HOMES AS COLLATERAL,OUR CREDIT RATINGS AS COLLATERAL.”
I would hope that anyone coming up with that kind of incoherent, discombobulated and idiotic utterance would be able to back it up with serious documentation. And people wonder why homeowners fare so poorly?
One such idiotic statement uttered before a judge permanently damages his perception of homeowners as a species. When thousands and thousands repeat it ad nauseam in court, from one coast to the other, homeowners don’t have a prayer, no matter how good their case might otherwise have been.
Lord have mercy of this country.
ROCK HAVE A FEW QUESTION.
1/ YOU SAY COURT WANT YOU TO PAY BACK MONEY LENT! OK
SO IF YOU FIND OUT THAT THE LENDER ON MORTGAGE AND NOTE, DID NOT LEND YOU THE MONEY. I.E. IN MY CASE, FOUND MONEY TRANFER FROM CLOSING SHOWING A NON-LENDER SENDING THE MONEY TO ATTORNEY’S ACCOUNT. !! AND THEN AS OF LAST YR, GOT A COPY OF THE MORTGAGE NOTE FROM SERVICER. NOW OVER PAST 4 YRS I HAVE GOTTEN 3 DIFFERENT
COPY’S OF MY MORTGAGE NOTE SHOWING THE FOLLOWING.
1/ JUST NOTE NOTHING ON IT!!!
2/ NOTE SAYING PAYED TO THE ORDER OF ( BLANK )
3/ NOTE SAYING PAYED TO THE ORDER OF
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS
WITHOUT RECOURSE
THIS IS SIGNED, AND DATED. AS OF 11/8/2005
____________________________________________
D. CHIODO
ASSISTANT SECRETARY
GMAC MORTGAGE CORP. INC
THIS IS THE SAME COMPANY THAT FUNDED THE MONEY ON THE DAY OF CLOSING. 11/8/2005!!!!!
SO YOU TELL ME. WHAT WOULD COURT DO IN THIS CASE??
FIRST THE COMPANY SAYING THEY LENT MONEY DID NOT LEND ANY MONEY.. BUT WE HAVE BEEN SENDING 2500 A MONTH FOR THE PAST 6 YRS. ADD THAT UP.
NOW GMAC MORTGAGE SOLD MY MORTGAGE UP TO 30 TIMES FOR THE APPRAISEL PRICE OF 500,000 THOUSEND DOLLARS EACH TIME, ADD THAT UP.
THEY ALSO TOOK ALL OUR MORTGAGES TO TREASURY, AND RECEIVED UP TO 40 TIMES THE AMOUNT ON THE NOTE. SO A 350,000 DOLLAR MORTGAGE NOTE, THEY RECEIVE IN THERE ACCOUNTS AS MUCH AS 14,000,000. THATS 14 MILLION DOLLARS USEING OUR. HOMES AS COLLATERAL,OUR CREDIT RATINGS AS COLLATERAL.
SO TELL ME WHO, OWES MONEY. NOT THE HOME OWNER. NO WAY. AS I SEE IT THEY OWE ME 10’S OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AS THEY USE MY MORTGAGE NOTE TO GET IT. AND THEY NEVER LENT ONE CENT TO ME.. GO FIGURE…
First, TILA rescission DOES NOT apply to a purchase.
Second, if there is a TILA violation on a nonpurchase agreement ie. refinance, you have 3 years from closing to file rescission notice. However, a few courts have found tolling in few very rare cases.
Lastly, most courts will throw out your case if you can’t show you can pay back the money lent.
All of the above can be backed up with cases.
Warning DO NOT listen to anyone that can’t back up their posts with an abundance of cases.
THE QUESTION STILL REMAIN’S.
WHO DO YOU SEND RESCISSION TO .. IF YOUR ORIGINAL SO CALLED LENDER IS BANKRUPT. I.E.
MINE WAS GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, THAN, GMAC MORTGAGE . LLC. THEN ALLY , THEN GONE!!!!!!!!!!! , I.E. UNDER RESIDENTUAL MORTGAGE CORP. RES-CAP.
NOW OCWEN THINKS ITS SERVICER, AND DOING THE BIDDING FOR, WELLS FARGO AS TRUSTEE, FOR GMACM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-J1
SO AGAIN, WHO DO I SEND RESCISSION TO??????
AND THE BIG QUESTION IS THIS,. IF THIS LOAN WAS DONE IN NOV OF 2005. BUT JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT ALL THE FRAUD IN MORTGAGE, AND MORTGAGE NOTE. WHEN DOES THE TIME START WHEN NOTICE OF FRAUD???
Originally Garfield, but now that you mention it both.
Rock- you talking about Neil or Jan van Eck? Who doesn’t know what they are talking about?
This is what is gonna go down in my opinion. Some Judges very few will loose there jobs or go to jail. Not many.
The Lawyers representing the Banksters will take the fall. big time.
What the Judges dont understand is that the Banksters are taking them to be fools and there pensions just like our so called Securitized Back Asset Loans are all Straw Fictitious Companies no Money inside. Basically they’re pensions are wiped out.
jUST AN OPINION. Crime does not pay, Just ask Adolf Hitler.
NEVER AGAIN
@Jan Van Eck: “These are “re-created notes,” manufactured on an infernal machine built by the Deibold Corporation of Ohio to the specifications of banks, designed to duplicate by analog pen (driven by servo-motors) the exact scanned digital signature of the original documents. What the Courts are confronting are uncanny re-manufactures of electronic scans, and nobody has figured out which is which and the hows and whys of this cute little fraud.”
I have two notes now. One note is located in one law firm’s files and the other in a different law firm’s files. The “first” note has been created with an autopen which, I assume, is from the Diebold Corp. in Ohio. There is a way to tell a document signed with an autopen, and there are handwriting/documentation experts who can tell the difference.
I know that has been stated before, but the pension plans for the judges, clerks of court, etc. are a major conflict of interest. The lawsuit that was filed by the pension plan in my state against BONY Mellon was settled secretly, and we do not know what happened. So, how can a judge not know what the crooks were up to if he is engaged in a lawsuit with his pension plan because of bad mortgage backed securities?
I lift, by “cut and paste,” the verbatim comments made by the Judge from the Bench in rendering his Decision in the foreclosure case brought by servicer USBank in a case in Hawaii:
16 After six years, if there was someone else
17 that was the holder of this Note, I think, if that were
18 the case, they would make their appearance known.
19 How could you possibly argue, Mr. Wright,
20 when — ask any reasonable, rational person to believe
21 that someone who is owed merely $800,000, would just sit
22 tight indefinitely and not come forward? That — that’s
23 incredulous. It just belies credibility, that somebody
24 would do that. Especially a bank. They charge you ten
25 cents just to get a copy of your check for God’s sakes,
This is the culmination of a ten-year battle by homeowner Wright against USBank, where USBank claimed that it was the “holder of the note” and “entitled to enforce the note” even though the obligations under the Note were discharged by a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy discharge (thus rendering suits on Note a breach of the Discharge Order) and it demonstrates the real uphill battle that homeowners have.
What this Judge simply could not wrap his head around was that (1) New Century [the original “lender”] was never a lender in any cognizable sense; the money came from some pension fund in Norway and was being laundered through Bear Stearns; (2) the “trust” never got the note or the loan; what the trust buyers got were certificates of shares in a trust; (3) the real reason nobody is showing up over six years to claim the loan as theirs is that that loan, like all the others that New Century flogged, were insured by credit-default insurance policies, so somebody out there (and probably not the pension fund in Norway) got the proceeds of the insurance, thus paying off the Note, except (no surprise) nobody goes and stamps the Note as PAID.
The other problem that neither the borrower nor the Judge understood was that the Note in this case (and so many others) is not the original, although the signatures on them is unerringly accurate. These are “re-created notes,” manufactured on an infernal machine built by the Deibold Corporation of Ohio to the specifications of banks, designed to duplicate by analog pen (driven by servo-motors) the exact scanned digital signature of the original documents. What the Courts are confronting are uncanny re-manufactures of electronic scans, and nobody has figured out which is which and the hows and whys of this cute little fraud.
Amazingly, in this case the Judge issued an Order that the notorious Wells Fargo Bank, the so-called “servicer” (although there was no real proof of that presented, either) Appear before the Court in march in order to Show Cause why substantial sanctions in the form of money penalties should not be levied against it, on the basis f=of their demonstrated long-standing pattern of misconduct before that specific Court. Well, of the Court already has a five-year demonstrated history of misconduct by Wells Fargo, why on earth would the Court not toss them out on their fannies in the first place?
There are just so many problems with this decision, and the way the Judge got to where he did in the course of the trial, that I shake my head. It remains a real up-hill battle. However, this case, and the trial transcripts, point to where you have to go: you need to meet head-on the idea in the mind of the Judge that, because nobody else is showing up to claim the Note, perforce it just must be these guys over at Wells Fargo. Never mind that the Judge is crafting his own evidence to fill in the blanks – which he is specifically not allowed to do, and is in theory trained to avoid doing.
And here is the killer – in reading over the trial transcripts, I conclude that this particular Judge was actually much better than most; mush better than what you typically run up against in foreclosure court, where all manner of old fogies in a mental fog are sitting rendering Judgments. Amazing.
So… President Clinton, under threat of impeachment, made a deal with three Republican Senators, Graham, Leach and Blighley.
Together, they created a law to skirt Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall was created in the aftermath of the Wall Street crisis of 1929 and it was designed to keep commercial banks from interacting with Mom and Pop’s mortgage.
After the Graham-Leach-Blighley deal, Wall Street was, once again, permitted to infiltrate the mortgage industry: the result was SUBPRIME LENDING.
WALL STREET LEARNED, EARLY-ON: THE MORE EXOTIC THE SUBPRIME DEAL, THE MORE MONEY THEY COULD COLLECT ON IT BECAUSE THE RULES ALLOWED THEM TO COLLECT THAT MONEY AFTER A MERE 30 DAYS ON THE FRONT END.
The 30 days speaks to the time during which Wall Street had to retain the loan before passing it off to someone else.
So, the borrower is promised a loan say for 30 years, fixed at 5%. Wall Street then seeks out investors to that loan- PENSION PLANS, FOR EXAMPLE.
The PENSION PLANS are also told the SINGLE loan in question is fixed for 30 years at 5%.
Wall Street secures the funds necessary to pay the loan, in full, from the PENSION PLANS, before the borrower even signs it.
In the meantime, Wall Street changes the deal: either through manipulation of the LIBOR to Wall Street’s Advantage; telling their underwriters to issue the loan at 3% as opposed to five, or, telling the borrower, at the closing table the single loan at 5% is no longer an option and the deal is now THREE LOANS AT CLOSING: all adjustable rate; interest-only, with balloons of 12% after seven years, with a pre-payment penalty (PERSONAL EXPERIENCE).
It is more likely the criminal filth on Wall Street used a combination of LIBOR manipulation AND outright fraud on the borrowers.
Buying a home is different than buying a bag of donuts; sometimes very real consequences ensue if the deal doesn’t go forward. (PERSONAL EXPERIENCE: IN OUR CASE, HAD WE NOT SIGNED THREE MORTGAGES AT CLOSING, WE WOULD HAVE LOST OUR LIFE SAVINGS).
Once Wall Street changed the deal with the borrower, they were permitted to keep the difference between what was promised at the outset: a single loan of 5% fixed at 30 years versus 3 loans, adjustable rate, interest-only, 12% balloon, with pre-payment penalty.
Of course, Wall Street never bothered to tell the investors the loan had been radically altered in favor of the bank and they were encouraged to believe they had been treated fairly because the bank was sending them their 5% interest as promised.
DOUBT ME?: GOOGLE THE RECENT 14 BILLION DOLLAR SETTLEMENT BETWEEN BANK OF AMERICA AND THE INVESTORS THEY DEFRAUDED IN THIS WAY.
THE PENSION PLANS, AS INVESTORS SWALLOW THE WALL STREET, “BAIT-AND-SWITCH”, SUBPRIME NONSENSE, HOOK-LINE-AND-SINKER BECAUSE THE RATINGS AGENCIES HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO MERE, WALL STREET HIRELINGS.
Once upon a time, because people declared bankruptcy, their debt on their mortgage was also in jeopardy and the bank was at risk of having to award a “free house”.
The solution was to create pools of loans to be sold into the “secondary market”. The idea was to protect the debt owed on the mortgage when a person became distressed financially. After all- so the reasoning went- if the borrower defaults, the innocent party that bought their debt as part of a “securitized trust” shouldn’t be placed at risk of losing their investment.
Loans entered into trust in such a way were then referred to as “mortgage-backed securities”. These loans, now “mortgage-backed securities” are legitimized by the REMIC.
The REMIC is the “Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit”.
Pools of these loans have rules in order that the loans remain valid; these are the “pooling and Servicing Agreements” or, “PSA”s. The PSAs describe entitlements due to those who have invested in any given, particular trust.
The rules operate under New York laws probably because Manhattan is the clearinghouse for the trusts. Another name for a trust is: “A pool of loans”. Part of the rules stipulate the bank has 90 days in which to enter the loans, once signed by the borrowers, into a legitimate trust (remember a trust is just another name for a poll of loans).
According to any rational person, if the loan doesn’t enter the trust, it is illegitimate and therefore, “Void”. This is particularly true when there is a breach in the “chain of title”.
After all, as per the Supreme Court, Carpenter v Longan (1872), the lien follows the note. So, in other words, unless the bank claiming your debt has lawful possession of your wet-ink, signature note, it is forbidden by law to collect on the terms of the mortgage and the lien for which the note acts as a security for the bank.
I have personally destroyed thousands of notes (the contract, think of it as the pinkslip) and liens (the mortgages, that are only legitimate if the person seeking to claim the terms inherent to it is in possession of the pinkslip first).
Everyone knows mortgages were destroyed through “dematerialization, fraud and outright negligence; everyone knows banks have mass-produced forgeries, false-witnesses (robo-signing) and criminal, thefts-by-deception, and, they have been hoodwinking the courts for years.
Through personal experience, I know the notes have been destroyed and because this is true, they were never entered into legitimate trust.
Instead, loans were copied to computer disc (“dematerialized”) and traded like so many baseball cards on an internet boutique that is called the MERS.
The MERS, as We all know, never “lent” the “borrower” any money for a “loan” and is, instead, an electronic filing cabinet.
Once “loans” were entered onto the MERS, counties across the nation lost billions upon billions of dollars in revenue that was owed for recording valid transfers of title (this is the AGs settlement with the banks).
In the meantime, since the loans were destroyed thus and never entered a “legitimate trust”, where have they been for any number of years? (Remember to Google “Bucketerring” if you haven’t done so yet).
In the above sentence, there is a question and it is incumbent upon the IRS to find the answer. After all, someone, somewhere is enjoying the fruits of this incredibly elaborate and criminal scam, AND, in most cases. they have been concealing the taxes owed to it for any number of years while receiving any number of tax-free US Dollars in the meantime.
In my opinion, this is one of the reasons why no one is coming forward as the true “Holder In Due Course”; the tax penalties will be fearsome indeed.
The REMIC Trust allows the banks a grace period and reduction of taxes-owed on the loans LEGITIMATELY ENTERED INTO TRUST THROUGH “PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES”.
We now know Wall Street CLAIMED to have placed the groups of mortgages in question into “pools of loans” that are now described as “SECURITIZED TRUSTS”. Some of us also know those claimed trusts are a fantasy: Google “Bucketeering”.
Most of us know the trusts were closed and liquidated long before “our loans” were ever entered into them (PERSONAL EXPERIENCE).
Some of us also know third parties paid our loans without us even knowing it (personal experience). Someone from Livinglies said it best, as follows: “Michael, secured borrowing, by a bank, using third party collateral is illegal”. I have been doing my homework. When a bank engages in this wholly-illegal behavior, it is called “tertiary financing”.
If I understand Mr. Garfield’s position, he is saying investor funds (tertiary financing) were used as “table-funding” to satisfy the “loan” in its entirety at the closing table…
He then feels the borrowers were told the “loan” was owned by the bank that originated the mortgage…
Through personal experience I know the bank that claimed to originate the “loan” did no such thing; somebody else did…
And, when I questioned the bank about it, they gave me at least three conflicting answers.
If I understand him correctly, Mr. Garfield feels the banks told the investors the “loan” was secured at, let’s say, 5% interest, fixed for thirty years as a single loan…
He then feels that loan was paid, in-full using investor money (see the BOA 14 Billion Dollar Settlement) and then the terms were changed at closing using LIBOR and borrower manipulation…
I agree.
At the same time, I don’t fully understand whether Mr. Garfield agrees with me the bank then took the difference between what the borrower was promised, the investors then paid for and then what Wall Street actually collected, on the front end, as windfall to the banks…
I am not blaming Mr. Garfield, nor am I disparaging him in any way. Instead, I am hoping he may elaborate further as to whether my thesis is correct in this regard…
In the meantime…
The banks on Wall Street infiltrated the mortgage market through subprime lending, then they manipulated borrowers, investors, the ratings agencies and the LIBOR index…
Once their SUBPRIME scam was beginning to fall apart, they began to speculate in derivatives fraud (see Goldman Sachs creating bogus pools of subprime garbage, then selling it to their own investors while placing derivatives bets against it). Also, read, Michael Lewis, “The Big Short”, its companion book, “Boomerang”; also, “Fool’s Gold”, I admit I forget the author; also, “The Web Of Debt”, Ellen Hodgson Brown.
The international shortfall to derivatives is 682 Trillion Dollars.
Some believe We The People should conceal the criminal enterprise currently in residence on Wall Street, while sanctioned in its behavior through the central bank (the intentionally mislabeled “Federal Reserve”) because, if we don’t the US Dollar will fail as the International Sovereign Currency.
Instead, I feel We The People should prosecute Wall Street, unwind the fraud and return to the victims their personal property… whether their homes or their investment money.
I feel the US “Greenback” should then be reinvigorated and used to offset the ruinous and hyper-inflationary “Federal reserve Notes” presently debasing our currency the world over.
In consequence, We should then repudiate the debts owing to the intentionally mislabeled “Federal Reserve”; both, the principal owed as T-Bonds and the interest, currently described as a 16 Trillion Dollar “Deficit”.
Frankly, 16 Trillion Dollars is the least of our problems, and, as interest-owed to the principal it is a mere shadow of the extent to which the commonwealth has been defrauded by a cabal of private, international bankers (the Federal Reserve).
We The People should then return the central bank as a PUBLIC UTILITY that functions for the good of all by returning funds into the PUBLIC TREASURY-NOT THE PRIVATE POCKETS OF A SELF-ANOINTED ARISTOCRACY.
If We were to adopt this standard it would enjoy a return to the rule of law and salvage our reputation that We are a democracy and not an oligarchy. Moreover, it would empower the people to the detriment of the corporatocracy and reinvigorate the housing market, the pension plans and the economy generally…
What if the notice of rescission was sent years ago and the lender/servicer never responded.
Judges are allegedly aiding and abbeting Forgery Fraud etc…..
http://msfraud.org/STOP-JUDICIAL-CORRUPTION-AND-SAVE-OUR-HOMES_2-15.html
NEVER AGAIN.
Bad boys bad boys what you gonna do when the law comes for you.
Once again, rhetoric from someone who has no clue what they’re talking about. This post is beyond laughable.