TILA Rescission: Three Years from When? Three Days from When?

James Macklin, a senior forensic analyst has worked together with attorneys and produced the following article on the “statute of limitations” as it applies to notices of rescission. I think I agree with their premise but would add that in all probability, if the lender is not known — the three day right of rescission starts to run when the real lender is disclosed. Otherwise there either is no contract for loan or the three day right can be exercised. If the three day right is exercised, then there is no defense to it of any kind even if the bank files the challenge action within 20 days of the notice. The challenge action would be subject to dismissal for failure to state a cause of action.


The general rule you will normally see in regard to TILA 3 year right of rescission is the following:
“Section 1635 of TILA allows consumers to rescind “any consumer credit transaction . . . in which a security interest . . .is or will be retained or acquired in any property which is used as the principal dwelling of the person to whom credit is extended,” so long as such rescission takes place within three days of the consummation of the transaction or the delivery of required disclosures under TILA, whichever occurs later. 15 U.S.C. § 1635. If the lender never submits the required disclosures, the borrower’s right to rescission expires three years after the consummation of the transaction. 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f).”  In the seminal case of Beach v., Ocwen, 523 U.S. 410, the United State Supreme Court held: “the right of rescission is completely extinguished after three years from the date of the loan’s consummation.”  See also 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f).  Equitable tolling does not apply to an action for rescission under TILA. See Mays v. U.S. Bank National Association, 2010 WL 318537 (E.D. Cal.2010).
This then begs the question, when is a loan “consummated” under TILA.  According to the FDIC on this website, consummation means when a consumer becomes obligated on a loan.”  See also 12 C.F.R. § 226.2(a)(13).
Under Regulation Z, which specifies a lender’s disclosure obligations, “consummation” of the loan occurs when the borrower is “contractually obligated.” 12 C.F.R, §226.2(a)(13). The point at which a “contractual obligation … is created” is a matter of state law. 12 C.F.R. pt. 226, Supp. 1 (Official Staff Interpretation), cmt. 2(a)(13). Under California law, a contract is formed when there are (1) parties capable of contracting, (2) mutual consent, (3) a lawful object, and (4) sufficient cause or consideration.  See California Civil Code Section 1550 and Grimes v. New Century Mortgage Corp., 340 F.3d 1007, 1009 (9th Cir. 2003).
Under TILA, the Courts must look to state law in determining when a borrower becomes contractually obligated on a loan.  At the very least, before you can have a contract, there must be specifically identified parties to the contract (meaning an identified lender and a identified borrower) – “parties capable of contracting” as set forth above and sufficient consideration.
Now, in the god old days a borrower and a bank would contract to lend money.  The borrower would borrow the money and offer a security interest in its property, and the bank would lend money off its balance sheet and hold both the note and mortgage (deed of trust) in the event you failed to pay.  Those days are gone for a large number of “securitized loans” (loans that are bundled into pools and sold off on Wall Street).  Nowadays, you have a loan “originator” posing as a “lender” and the loan originator is not loaning you a dime (rather, someone else or some other entity is funding, lending, or table funding the loan).  In this scenario, the originating lender, purporting to contract to “lend” you money, is not actually lending you any money.  In reality, they are doing nothing more than earning a commission on the money SOMEONE ELSE IS LENDING YOU (i.e. some Wall Street investor in your loan pool who is funding the loan, who is NOT IDENTIFIED AT ANY STAGE OF THE LOAN PROCESS, and who expects a return on their investment).  These hidden investors are the true “lender” who is the source of funds for you loan.  Strange, but true.
So, when you contract with the “originator” of the loan (as opposed to the lender), has the true lender ever been identified?  No, they have not.  So shouldn’t the promissory note be between you and the real lender?  After all, the “lender” on the note and deed of trust never lent you any money, and this can be verified by looking at their balance sheet.  Do you have an enforceable contract to lend money under state law in this scenario?  That is an issue to litigate under TILA – in my opinion.  The originator is representing that they are lending you money,, when in fact they are not.  They are serving as an intermediary for someone else to lend you money.  Is there a meeting of the minds under this scenario?
There are a few other cases I have come across in my research that indicate, that under this scenario (usually involving MERS securitized loans, and other hard money loans where undisclosed entities are table funding the loan), the LENDER MUST BE IDENTIFIED BEFORE THE THREE YEARS BEGINS TO RUN, WHICH MEANS, IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHO THE REAL “LENDER” IS, OR THE TRUE “SOURCE OF FUNDS” FOR YOUR LOAN, THE THREE YEAR CLOCK TO EXERCISE YOUR RESCISSION RIGHTS MAY NOT BEGIN TO RUN.
(1) Ramsey v. Vista Mortgage Corp, 176 BR 183 (TILA RESCISSION IN BANKRUPTCY CHAPTER 13 CASE).  In this case, the court laid down the test of when the three year right to rescind begins to run and specifically tackles the concept of when a loan is “consummated.”  Several internal citiations also help clarify this point.  Here is what the Ramsey Court said:
“When Ramsey signed the loan documents on September 13, 1989, he knew who was going to provide the financing. Courts recognize the date of signing a binding loan contract as the date of consummation when the lender is identifiable.”   The Court also cited to the Jackson v. Grant, 890 F.2d case (9th Circuit 1989), a NON-BANKRUPTCY CASE, and said: “the Ninth Circuit held that under California law a loan contract was not consummated when the borrower signed the promissory note and deed of trust because the actual lender was not known at that time.Under these circumstances, the loan is not “consummated” until the actual lender is identified, because until that point there is no legally enforceable contract.”
ANALYSIS: It seems fair to say that the Courts are not willing to find a contractual obligation exists under State Law until a true and actual lender is identified. “Pretender lenders” – as Neil Garfield calls them – and intermediary “originators” who make false representations to the effect that they are “lending money”and are your “lender” should not be sufficient to set the three year TILA rescission clock in motion.  Until the real Wall Street entity, or Wall Street Investor, or true source of the table funded loan is identified, the loan should not be deemed “consummated” under TILA and the three year right to rescind should remain open until such disclosure is made.  That is TRUTH IN LENDING WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF TILA IN THE FIRST PLACE.
We have talked about the consequences of TILA rescission in many other posts.  Google “Vondran TILA lawyer” (or got http://www.RescindMyLoan.net or http://www.ForeclosureDefenseResourceCenter.com) and you will see more articles.  AS WITH EVERYTHING ELSE IN FORECLOSURE DEFENSE, DO NOT WAIT UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE BEFORE SEEKING A FORECLOSURE LAWYER.  IF YOU GET A NOTICE OF DEFAULT OR NOTICE OF SALE, DO NOT WAIT, CONTACT A FORECLOSURE AND BANKRUPTCY, TILA LAWYER TO PUT TOGETHER A SOUND LITIGATION PLAN.
James L. Macklin, Managing Director
Secure Document Research(Paralegal Services/Legal Project Management)
Agent for Charles T. Marshall, Esq. (SBN 176091)
917 Tahoe Blvd #201 A
Incline Village NV 89451

44 Responses


    johngault, on April 14, 2015 at 1:30 am said:

    “I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in”. Oh, it’s not on today’s menu. Phew.

    This may be of interest to those In Illinois, PA, and MA re tila rescission (after 3 years) in recoupment:


    Way I get it, it’s IL and PA ‘not’ and MA ‘yes’ and the reasons, acc to this case: state law.

  2. Well this is not legal advice, it’s only an opinion and for entertainment.

    For those that get no response from the bank, it seems noticing the CFPB with a complaint containing the information that you were rescinding your signature and not getting a response, will force a response from the bank within 20 days.

    When we do it the way we are told to do it, there’s so many loopholes cause our actions are ‘private’, no one knows the certified mail/return receipt number but you.

    When we make this information public, by judicial conduct committee complaints, BAR attorney complaints, state attorney general complaints, cfpb complaints,, FTC complaints, and we give evidence by providing actual people’s names who have communicated with us, or made decisions that affect our interest without our consent, we will gt further.

    If I ran but never fell while running, I’d take no care in my running as to any obstacles vertical or horizontal in my way because I never fell.

    Once I have fallen, I become aware of the things that will get in my way and keep me from running, which is the thing I want to do. I want to run, not fall.

    I would notice the man or woman on the side of the road tossing things in my path to divert me from a clean sprint in the direction I chose. I would notice something is blocking my way and that I will not be able to get through that way.

    I use those obstacles to learn how to take alternate paths to the same destination.

    Direct paths are quicker, alternate paths take longer, but I’m working toward a goal here.

    Where a trip from California through Oregon to Washington state can have a direct route, it’s not beyond me to learn to cut over from California to Nevada to get to the same destination.

    Courts are getting in the way and diverting the paths, and we may need to figure out a way to keep it out of their arena, or expose each actor in the court system by name and identify them and the act they had done and make it public.

    If you complain, it’s an opinion. How do you make it an affidavit? Ensure that the first lines of the complaint indicate that the information is true and provided under penalty of perjury, state facts, no assumptions, no presumptions. Who did it, who do they work for, do they have the consent to do the thing, how did it affect you, what you’d like the agency to do to help cure the problem.

    They have to answer agency complaints. Just like we are forced to provide docs to defend our right, they have to provide docs to support their authority to do what cause us to complain.

    Imagine what a million criminal complaints on foreclosure mills, and robosigners, and fraud foreclosue sales would have done. It would have triggered an investigation and made someone answer to what was happening in the name of their business and why.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

    If the contract is legitimate, you don’t have to fabricate anything.

  3. I’ve tried to explain how TILA rescission works in the REAL world, and it obviously fell on deaf ears because most people who frequent this site have drank the new Jim Jones’s (Garfield) Kool-Aid and can’t now tell black from white. Well maybe these two decisions, and one from Garfield’s buddy Macklin case, who Garfield constantly quotes as recently as this week, got spanked by the court who called Garfield’s/Macklin’s arguments a “fallacy.”

    Moreover, explained as I did the Jesonoski’s holding was very narrow, just that a borrower didn’t have to file a lawsuit within the 3yr. SOL.

    I can hear the crackpots and the other legally deficient nitwits screaming now; “these tyrannical courts, this is more evidence of the judges in the bank’s pocket.” Ad nauseum.

    Bankr. Court, SD New York, 2015

    Bankr. Court, ED California, 2015

  4. http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20080930_0001091.NIL.htm/qx

    “Hubbard”: H timely rescinded in feb of 2005. Ameriquest did not rescind. This adjudication was on September 30, 2008,
    3 1/2 years from H’s rescission. The ruling was made on a pre-trial mtn by H for SJ, which was granted. This means H, who is the plaintiff, didn’t file an action for maybe 3+ years.

    “Upon examination of the statutory language, its implementing regulations, the pertinent case law, and the role that rescission plays within the TILA scheme, the Court concludes that Hubbard’s timely rescission request as to Ameriquest is equally effective against Deutsche Bank as assignee, despite lack of notice to Deutsche Bank within the three year window.”

    “The TILA and Regulation Z lay out the steps that an obligor must take to invoke its right of rescission. Significantly, both the statute and the regulation only require notification to the “creditor.” 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a) (“[T]he obligor shall have the right to rescind the transaction * * * by notifying the creditor * * * of his intention to do so”); 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(a)(2) (“[T]he consumer shall notify the creditor of the rescission by mail, telegram or other means of written communication”). The use of “creditor” is significant, because that word has a defined meaning under TILA. A “creditor” “refers only to a person who * * * is the person to whom the debt arising from the consumer credit transaction is initially payable on the face of the indebtedness * * *.” 15 U.S.C. § 1602(f). Under the plain language of the statute, Hubbard fulfilled his obligation to rescind when he notified Ameriquest, “the “creditor,” that he wanted to rescind.”

    “Ameriquest admits that it is liable for statutory damages, as well as costs and attorney’s fees,*fn11 as a result of its failure to rescind the transaction when requested to do so by Plaintiff. Def. Supp. Br. at 3, 6. The remaining question is whether such liability also may be imposed on Deutsche Bank”

    “…..the Court……. grants Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to Ameriquest and Deutsche Bank, finding both Ameriquest and Deutsche Bank liable for rescission, statutory damages, and costs and attorneys’ fees.” (there are caveats in the case to the liability imposed against against Deutsche for three of those: stat damages, costs, and fees).”

  5. From Hubbard: “A servicer may be treated as an assignee only if the servicer is or was the owner of the obligation. See id.

    **However, a servicer is not treated as an owner on the “basis of an assignment of the obligation from the creditor or another assignee to the servicer solely for the administrative convenience of the servicer in servicing the obligation.” 15 U.S.C. § 1641(f)(2).”

    jg: that’s funny since the servicer with an assignment or claiming poss of a bearer note alleges it’s the rpii (unless as here, it’s on the receiving end of a suit re; a tila or other violation. I’ve seen claimants, esp Aurora Loan Svcs, retreat in a NY minute to “we’re just the servicer” when lending violation allegations are made. It hardly seems appropriate to let a servicer with an assignment skate on tila but then recognize it as a rpii to take one’s home (course, now we’re doing trusts as rpii and I’m still wondering what gave them the nerve to do this. Is it as simple as
    because they can because they rule and because of bs presumptions?)

  6. “The purpose of rescission is to place the parties
    back to the positions they held prior to
    the extension of the loan .A successful rescission operates to void the bank’s security interest in the borrower’s home, and allow for the recovery of **statutory damages for any failure to honor
    rescission**. To effectuate rescission, a borrower must
    send a notice of rescission outlining the material violations under TILA and explicitly requesting rescission of the loan. The borrower should send the notice of rescission to the current mortgage holder (public record – sic), servicer and the original lender, just to be safe. If the borrower is unsure of the address where to send the notices, the
    borrower may call the bank (this may be old!) to request the appropriate mailing address….

    Despite that it is the original lender’s failure to supply accurate material disclosures, TILA allows the borrower to rescind against the
    ass ignee of the loan. A notice of rescission under TILA is effective against assignees of the loan. Schmit v. Bank United FSC,
    2009 WL 320490 at *3 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 6, 2009) (“Assignees…may not ‘hide behind the assignment’; timely notice to the original creditor rescinds the transaction in its entirety.”) quoting Hubbard v.
    Ameriquest Mortgage Co., 2008 WL 4449888 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 30, 2008).

    Upon receipt, the mortgage holder has twenty (20) days
    to comply with the request, void its security interest in the home and return any interest and finance charges paid by the borrower.
    To effectuate rescission the mortgage holder must release its security interest in the home and return all funds that that the borrower paid over the course of the loan, including interest and costs. At which point, the borrower must tender either loan proceeds or the property to mortgage holder. In other words borrower must be prepared to
    either (1) give the property to the mortgage (hey now there’s a credit saving idea!) holder, (2) obtain a loan to repay the mortgage holder
    the remaining principal balance of the loan* (of course with better terms than the rescinded loan). If the borrower is unwilling to tender the
    property, and cannot obtain another loan to pay back the mortgage holder, the borrower must seek a repayment plan by settling with the mortgage holder or pursuing assistance from the courts. In the event that the mortgage holder disputes the borrower’s right to rescind or if it is unwilling to tender first, the mortgage holder is obligated to seek assistance from the courts.”

    jg: this is where we part company (rock should like this):

    “Where mortgage holder will reject rescission and does not itself seek a declaratory judgment or other assistance from the courts, the
    borrower must take legal action to enforce rescission. If after 20 days the mortgage holder rejects, fails to honor rescission or fails to seek a
    rescission modification from the courts, then the borrower must file a complaint to enforce rescission. The complaint should join the mortgage broker, the original lender, and the current servicer as defendants. The complaint should allege rescission and damages against the mortgage holder for a failure to honor rescission.”

    jg: I’m actually going to call the author, an attorney, on info and belief, for source material, but I do note that the article doesn’t say when the
    borrower must file a complaint.

    “TILA rescission is a powerful tool, but notable limitations are that a borrower must rescind within three-years, for material violations
    of TILA, and only for a refinance of a mortgage securing the borrower’s principal dwelling
    .Otherwise, TILA rescission is beneficial to a borrower not interested in keeping the property, because the borrower may tender the property
    and receive a return of all interest and other costs he or she paid over the course of the loan. The mortgage holder and other servicer is then required to cure all bad credit marks associated with the loan.”

    jg: hmmmm

    “Therefore, a borrower with a mortgage eligible for rescission may want to consider looking over their documents from the closing for TILA
    violations or have a qualified attorney consider their case for rescission.”

  7. NPV
    The point, you said words to effect that some entity used the name but regardless the borrower got the money to buy the house, my argument is it was concealed what the true cost was going to be when I say, ” it’s so much more”.

  8. “I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in”. Oh, it’s not on today’s menu. Phew.

    This may be of interest to those In Illinois, PA, and MA re tila rescission (after 3 years) in recoupment:


    Way I get it, it’s IL and PA ‘not’ and MA ‘yes’ and the reasons, acc to this case: state law.

  9. NPV it’s so much more

  10. “Christine, have you noticed that you’re the only one concerned about Garfield’s audits and wins? No one else is discussing those things. Except for you and your bud Rock.”


    The two people on that blog, who won by NOT using Garfield’s theories and audits, are being attacked for questioning Garfield, not by Garfield himself but…. by the roadkill he has left behind for 7 years and who won’t admit they lost by following him.

    Truly surreal.

  11. Glaski is not dead. Yvanova vs New West.


  12. Christine, have you noticed that you’re the only one concerned about Garfield’s audits and wins? No one else is discussing those things. Except for you and your bud Rock. You two are off in the corner by the plastic LL potted palm next to the dangling cardboard pine scent air freshener cooking up all kinds of bizarre comments that are obviously aimed at derailing what IS being discussed. And just because you don’t like the discussions going on here doesn’t mean that they should stop. You don’t have the persuasive powers that you believe yourself to have.

    That’s why I prescribed the Thorazine. We’ll get along so much better with you tuned down to a soft murmur. I can’t wait.

    Oh, and Glaski imploded not because it was bad law, but as a direct result of the judge union deciding that they wouldn’t/couldn’t allow the borrower to have standing. It’s the horse out of the barn deal. So when the banks got in a tizzy and tried to keep that decision from being published and lost on that note, they then did whatever they had to do to see that the robes would be taken care of ($$$) if they simply ignored the Glaski decision. And that’s precisely what I and others have been talking about here on LL while you and Rock spin all sorts of diversions about forensics and whether or not Garfield is a litigator.

  13. An audit is worthless unless set forth as an affidavit made by an expert, that has the background to support the affidavit – i.e you put your money where your mouth is.

    Preparing any audit or TILA investigation for a homeowner, with no legal skill, to utilize in a Court of law is the equivalent of preparing a new medical technique and trying to sell it to a beekeeper so they can perform surgery on themselves.

    The last I will speak on this subject is simple. When I sat at the the table – the lender was disclosed on my promissory note and mortgage, and a shit-ton of other documents.

    I agree with Neal on some of the ideas he sets forth, and have helped to win cases using similar research. I also agree that most loans contain one fatal flaw – the lender ordered the appraisal and it was intentionally inflated to meet the LTV criteria of the Depositor / rating company.

    I worked on Wall Street, and can tell you from firsthand knowledge that the collateral docs were not conveyed to the trustee or custodian as set forth in the PSA. I do know that it did not matter at closing who was providing the financing, this guy said he was the lender and regardless if this guy lent no more than his name to the transaction – the money arrived and I bought the house. Had my lender not intentionally defrauded me immediately prior to to being seized and placed into an FDIC Conservator Bank – I wouldn’t even know this website existed.

    Good luck to all.

  14. and Peace out Christine, you have a every right to a point of view.

  15. Well RESPA is not the smoking gun, and It is not going to save most of us, kiddo.

  16. Neidermeyer,

    Christine just wants to see cases won on Garfield theories and Garfield’s audits. Don’t care which state, don’t care which jurisdiction.

    Case law? Anyone? Glaski… kind of imploded. What’s left?

  17. I felt the audits I got were overall well intended but ultimately I may not be able to use them. so say you get a chance, to use them, and if the opinion gets past the oppositions fight to disqualify it, and if it’s any good, they will be relentless. If it is deemed it will help the trier of fact you might get it into evidence – but first, they will know these cases – so you should, been reading about the Daubert challenge, a landmark case 1999 ( the year I came here to US) the case (s) established a threshold re fed rules of evidence 702, to qualifying – or not. Also GE v Joinder.

  18. @ E. Tolle ,

    Christine sure likes to change the subject when it is something critical doesn’t she… picked right up on Rocky’s straw man “loan audit” post and flew with it…

    Neil posted some really good info on the 3 year limit and how to attack the supposed tolling start date… I myself am 8 years in and I requested the name of the lender (again) just 3 months ago from my servicer ,, they told me it was the trustee or the trustee knew it but wouldn’t disclose. I have my strong SUSPICIONS but I cannot say I “know” 100% who my actual lender is .. I believe the loan has not actually consummated…. That must scare the tar out of the banks… it certainly made Rocky jump in with both feet and a disjointed disconnected argument ,, almost like he had to act but didn’t have his cheat sheet from Deutsche or Citi ready for this eventuality.

  19. Got their answers on file too.

  20. What is the bigger shame IMHO
    Is why we could not get the name of the lender, when it clearly declares on my 1099a the “lender” lol,
    But they would not tell me before they took my house, well actually they ” lender” on the 1099a said it was someone else – in writing,
    I could not fund ANY evidence that it was true, so what do you suppose I did _ i RESCINDED, and after that being denied ( but wrongfully and never was a declaratory action filed despite my instruction that that should do so – and they did not they took the house anyway. So hence my series of audits, to TRY to find out .
    That’s what people do, they TRY to find out, if they care about how their name and signature was used for and by who, because the contract was a bad faith contract and as this post points out – from WHEN did tolling commence – possibly never.

  21. Christine, while you play lawyer, I’ll play doctor. Take 30mg Thorazine thrice daily. You can thank me later. So will everyone else.

  22. if someone mentions that a court in good conscience will not listen to fact, how does that transfer to an audit.

    I know my comment was about fact, had nothing to do with scam, or securitization or audit, it had to do with not hearing the fact as disclosed by a paper trail because of the title someone used.

    We know what the courts are there for, and we know no one presenting any evidence of a win, can prove from that point forward that it will ‘work’ again for a win, and a win, and a win, and a win.

    It’s all at the discretion of someone, and whether this i was dotted and this t was crossed.

    We’ve stated that all along.

    No one is being misled here. Neil is discussing alternative ways to bring a case and I think he makes it clear to communicate with an attorney before doing any thing you read any where, unless someone is pro se.

    We are not anyone’s god but our own.

    And if the new people who are watchers but don’t comment, and I don’t blame you, cause there are sites I visit and read comments, if you look, you can see.

    No one has to tell you to protect yourself from anyone else here.
    No one has to guide your way, or hold your hand. If you are old enough to contract, you are old enough to get into or out of a contract, but if you need a judge, you have one shot at finding out if they deal honorably, and that shot is while your interest is before that judge who if not honorable and most are not, will use their business to help someone else steal it.

    There were a list of judges who consistently produced some awesome rulings for the homeowner, and even those cases stopped being displayed on these sites.

    I didn’t track them, nor keep up with their names, but on this side of the non research, I would figure the wins stopped, if the same argument was used it didn’t work a second time, and maybe some pressures were put upon them to start handing some of that money back that they made, so they are going with the flow and handing over property to the banks again.

    We know it’s all a sham and a fraud, and we know the ones taking these cases to court and the ones ruling over these cases know too.

    It’s supposed to be a case is as strong as it’s weakest link.

    If no one reads the case or rules based on some syntax or technicality, it won’t matter; will it. The link that should win the case will be thwarted by a letter or a period or a comma or a judge or how much money you have to support the scam a little while longer.

    I will LOL again, a judge’s ruling stated that in good conscience they would not rule on the facts because they did not believe in the authority of the title of the ‘I’m guessing’ witness in the case.

    Now I’d wonder if that witness was sworn in under penalty of perjury and I’d wonder if there was an affidavit sworn and attested to of record in the court, along with black in on white paper facts showing who gave what to whom in the entire transaction that was leading to the claim of a loss of right or property.

    The original funny is

    The Court will not, in good conscience, consider any facts recited by such a questionable authority.

    will not consider any facts
    will not in good conscience consider any facts
    will not consider facts
    will not
    will not
    will not

    This is what a court will do to you no matter what you bring, it is not a court of law and it does not consider facts, the rules of the court can change at any time, that’s why people don’t win, and have to appeal, and even if they had the weakest link and should have won, upon appeal they are told they didn’t include enough to bring it to appeal to win on many other merits, so you are forced to put everything including the kitchen sink, the tire iron, the dish soap and dish rag and your sock in it but if they don’t read it, the other side gets a summary judgment or some other nonsense that you presented a witness with a title or an authority the court chose not to recognize.

    It’s all nonsense.

    It’s been how many years, and the number of homes stolen still outweigh the number of homes supposedly saved………but I tell you, they have been shown to come after the saved homes, in taxes or with an HOA, or they make sure you are laid off from your job or give a bogus modification that they rescind, and the list goes on and on. and by opinion I am aware of people who so called saved their house and spend years of the quality of their life and their retirement trying to keep ‘saving’ it.

    Some who saved their home still come here to stay on top of what we are doing, either to feed the beast the info to keep ahead of our knowledge, or in their continued fight to keep the home they purportedly saved, and if you think I’m talking about you, you are vain, because with 10 million visits, your vanity has to be pretty large to think I know who you are or care what you do, or even if I’m talking about you.

    Many visit here to read and do not comment.
    No trespass intended, I;m just stating one of infinite possibilities of what goes on here.

    That court would not even consider fact

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

  23. “Don’t you people have anything better to do than rule roosts?”

    Until people take responsibility for their results, suckers will listen to losers blame everyone but themselves. So, what did you do wrong to lose your house? What would you do differently if you could start all over again? Or did the judge really have it in for you, singled you out on the account of “your brad of specialness” and the blaming game is all there is?

    Nobody “rules the roost” (no plural. English grammar 101).

    Many suckers will keep on coming here. If a few can be prevented from getting your result, personally, I’ll have filled my mission.

    Just for the hell of it… How much did you waste on LL audits? We will never know. E.Tolle doesn’t come clean. Ever.

  24. This is another in a string of strawman arguments….who here has argued for forensic audits? From the look of the wild-eyed rants here, you’d think that we’ve all been lined up at the Forensic Loan Audit booth waving wads of cash. It would be like several here piling on Christine for electing that idiot John Kasich governor, whether she’d voted for him or not.

    Don’t you people have anything better to do than rule roosts?

  25. Rock,

    Even Veterans Today, very seriously involved in helping the poor guys who served as cannon fodder for our endless wars, fought to benefit exclusively the banks, warned them against those infamous “audits”. You’d think that a Belanger or a Charles Reed would, at the very least, listen to Gordon Duff.

    Think again… Once they hooked on the Gospel according to Garfield, they’re toast. Pity!


  26. And Rock,

    It is not for lack of serious information… In fact, you called some here “functional morons”. I beg to differ. They are NOT functional. Morons? You bet! Functional? Not even close!


    These PROVEN SWINDLES have landed a number of attorneys IN JAIL. Search for “loan audit” or “mass joinder” on the Attorney General’s website.
    Typically, this scam is run as a company offering a “forensic loan audit”, “securitization audit” or a “mortgage violation audit” for an up-front fee (of course – see the pattern). This is another tactic used to get around the prohibition on up-front fees for loan modifications. Most of the scam artists will charge a large fee for the audit but then pitch that they will do the loan modification work for “free” or that they will refer you to an attorney to file litigation based upon the findings in the loan audit. Not only is this an illegal fee structure, but it is completely useless. According to the FTC, there is absolutely no evidence that forensic loan audits are of any benefit in obtaining a mortgage modification or other mortgage relief. These “audits” are generally of no value whatsoever and often contain information that is wrong, misleading and does not accurately reflect the state and federal laws they supposedly address.Print Version
    Every single audit will show some type of violation of the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) laws or a violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). What these scam artists don’t tell you is that there are significant legal hurdles to bringing a claim under TILA or RESPA and that you might be forced to pay all the past due amounts or even “tender” the entire loan amount to be heard in court. That simply is NOT going to happen and you will quickly lose your case and waste a large amount of money on the lawyer.
    The California Attorney General joined the California Department of Real Estate (DRE) and the State Bar of California in warning Californians to avoid forensic loan audits, which they called “the loan-modification industry’s latest phony foreclosure-relief service in which homeowners pay up-front fees for a forensic review of their lender’s practices, but are provided no actual foreclosure relief.”
    “Forensic loan audits are yet another phony foreclosure-relief service hawked by loan-modification consultants trying to cash in on the desperation of homeowners facing foreclosure,” the AG said. “The foreclosure-relief industry continues to be long on promises, but short on results.”
    Thousands of homeowners were left in dismay when the law firm of Kramer & Kaslow was taken over by the Attorney General and when US Loan Auditors was shut down. These law firms and loan auditors were all pitching the mass joinder/class action scheme based upon useless loan/securitization audits. Innocent people, already battered by the housing crisis, were targeted for fraud in their moment of distress and were left with no options when the fraud was discovered. All the money they paid was lost

  27. Well Rock,

    Here is the problem: countless websites are reposting that insanity, among which Deadly Clear, occasionally MSFraud and many others purportedly “fighting” foreclosure. In addition, a number of activists post it on their Facebook pages. So, even if those guys have nothing to do with many of the homeowners, they can still cause enormous damage indirectly.

    But you know what? You, Gene, NPV, Tnharry or I can warn them until we get blue in the face: if homeowners are willing to waste money they don’t have, on useless audits they subsequently try to shove down the throat of competent attorneys who refuse to use them and represent them, rather than do their own homework of looking at winning cases, so be it. We know what works: we’ve experienced it first hand. Apparently, morons who long lost and keep coming here to bitch and moan are more attractive and authoritative. Pick your guru but don’t be surprise that you didn’t win jack.

    Under the circumstances, nobody should be surprised either that the landscape hasn’t changed much: they keep manufacturing case law for banks to use! They’re causing their own demise.

  28. Oh..I almost forgot to say….

  29. Kozeny & McCubbin dropped my case like a hot potato.
    They were the 2nd lawfirm to drop the case….

    I have a Good. Lawyer…. 🙂

  30. Christine, how many people do you think Garfield and his co-conspirators, Macklin, who already lost his home to foreclosure, and Edstrom, who’s in the process of losing his, have suckered into buying their nonsense. Bet its in the hundreds if not thousands.

    JULY 27, 2014

    Well, other California and Federal courts had more sense than the 5th District panel, and they gave the ruling short shrift as they opined that the borrower is not a party to the assignment of the note nor to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, and has no standing to challenge or enforce either one in court.

    So now securitization auditors slide back into their funk, and continue on selling their scam audits to hopeful foreclosure victims who don’t know any better.


    I go on to repeat tirelessly that only one thing beats the bank and its associates in mortgage issues: MORTGAGE ATTACK. You can read about it elsewhere on http://mortgageattack.com.

  32. Homeowners Now Being Cheated by “Mortgage Auditors”

    In the last 6 weeks I have met with three families that had paid up to $2,100.00 for an audit. All three of these “audits” were three ring binders filled with documents from the Securities and Exchange Commission Home page and articles from the newspaper detailing successful mortgage defense decisions. These products are problematic for a number of reasons:

    The documents from the SEC are free and available to the public.
    The newspaper stories, while informative, cannot be used as precedent to a judge.
    The analysis does nothing to breakdown what has happened with your payments after they were received by the Mortgage Company.
    The “expert” who is rendering the opinion would never be accepted by a court to testify in an expert capacity.
    The analytical process supporting the audit conclusion is flawed and that leads to an impossible opinion.
    None of the analysis brought to me by clients have included a review of the money paid by the homeowner.


  33. http://www.scribd.com/doc/171808087/Matulka-v-M-and-T-Bank-Complaint-Motion-to-Strike-Order-ned-8-12-cv-00237-0

    “Defendants McCubbin and Kozeny & McCubbin filed a Joint Motion to Strike a “Forensic Lender Discovery Stage One -Trust Identified Loan Securitization Audit Report” prepared for Plaintiff by Forensic Professionals Group USA, Inc. (Filing No. 31 at CM/ECF p. 1; Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF pp. 22-64.) This “report” is attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint and sets forth, among other things, that there was a “fabricated foreclosure transaction.”6 (See, e.g., Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 25.) Defendants McCubbin and Kozeny & McCubbin argue that this “report” presents impertinent and scandalous accusations, and it is immaterial to Plaintiff’s claims. (Filing No. 31.) The court will deny the Motion to Strike as moot in light of its decision to dismiss this matter. In the alternative, the Motion is denied because, while the

    Footnote 6 Another court presented with a similar “forensic mortgage analysis” noted the following:

    The second document is a “Certified Forensic Loan Audit” prepared by someone named D. Alex-Saunders. Mr./Ms. Alex-Saunders, for whom no contact information is provided, claims, variously, to be a “Senior Auditor: Home and Asset Ombudsman Program, International Environmental Association, 501(c)3,” “Senior ombudsman,” “Certified forensic auditor by National Association of Mortgage Underwriters,” “Associate of Global Association of Risk Professionals,” and the author of “Stop! Illegal Predatory Lending.” The Court is unfamiliar with these organizations (if they exist), but it is quite confident that there is no such thing as a “Certified Forensic Loan Audit” or a “certified forensic auditor.” In any event, the documents make no more sense than anything else in the Debtor’s papers and confirm the empty gimmickery of these types of claims.

    In re Norwood, No. 10–84443–PWB, 2010 WL 4642447, at *2 n.2 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Oct. 25, 2010) (observing that the Federal Trade Commission has issued a “Consumer Alert” regarding “Forensic Mortgage Loan Audit Scams”).”

  34. Mortgage Securitization Audits….THEY ARE A CRIME!
    Let me be clear about this one more time.


    VIOLATIONS.””A person who violates any provision of this section commits an unfair and deceptive trade practice as defined in part II of this chapter. Violators are subject to the penalties and remedies provided in part II of this chapter, including a monetary penalty not to exceed $15,000 per violation.

    The scams morph and twist, but the outcome and intent are the same. The outcome is a homeowner is scammed. The intent is to take thousands of dollars from those who can least afford it.

    Every time I write one of these posts I get pounced on and attacked by all sorts of people who claim they are the real deal, they do real audits and provide real service to homeowners. Now, I will acknowledge that there are a handful of individuals out there who are working with attorney and who have very valuable information that can be useful to the homeowner….BUT THAT INFORMATION IS USELESS IF IT IS NOT ADMISSABLE IN COURT!



  35. “Foreclosure mills across Florida keep winning in court not because of corrupt judges or because of the “Rocket Dockets” but because foreclosure defense attorneys either want to argue legal theories dreamt up by Neil Garfield or foreclosure activists with no training in finance or lending or they just want to milk fees from the homeowner.

    Rocket dockets and corrupt judges offer a convenient excuses by attorneys to justify why they were unable to defeat a punk kid who is at most five weeks out of law school or to justify their fees for doing nothing.”


  36. LOL,

    I’m looking at the first comment on this post, and the final sentence of that post.

    The Court will not, in good conscience, consider any facts recited by such a questionable authority.

    The facts were not heard because the authority of the witness was in question? Really? The judge questioned the ‘title’ or ‘position’ of the one who followed the paper trail and that’s supposed to set precedence for how to steal someone’s property, and in good conscience refused to consider any facts because of the confidence no authority existed to be called ‘certified’?

    That writing is public record, and that judge should receive his just punishment based on that very statement. A judge’s authority and jurisdiction comes from the oath of office that in good conscience has not been filed nor is it of public record.

    Neither fact nor law will be tried in the courts. A is A you can’t dispute it, so dispute something else to dismiss the case.

    Stupid is as stupid does

    Trespass Unwanted

  37. whats the matter rock, had to have your big brother come in and say something.

  38. Oh by the way Banksters we’re soon gonna get reinforcement from the Student loan crowd. They’re young and well educated.

    And if Hillary knows what’s good for her

  39. Christine = Axis Sally


  40. Everybody knows the Judges not all Judges have been in on this scam.
    This is a war of attrition.
    So Rock and his coherts are left to fight the psychological warfare just like in all wars of attrition.

    Good always prevails


  41. Belanger: no one will ever stop you from making all the bad decisions and following all the bad advice you wish. Likewise, no one will ever stop us from pointing out the dangers of taking advice from this blog.

  42. rock , please go home, until you can prove who you are,what you are, there no need to come here.

    we are all trying to help all, and i can promise you this , the banks are going down on all the fraud.

    i have a second foreclosure sale this month, well i should say, they will try again, but funny thing talking with servicer today , they say there is no foreclosure sale schedule. i said maybe you should check your right hand, because left hand is saying i do have foreclosure sale on 21 april 2015.

    but told them, that as of 4 march 2015, loan contract and mortgage , and note has been cancelled. she said what. i said i have all copys of the return receipt that your office sign for already, and the lawyers sign for it to. plus all 18 others involved in this fraud. you couldnt here a pin drop. oh well am , am, am, am i get back to you.

    cant wait. 20 days for them to file in court was 31 march, 2015. and that is well gone by.

  43. Total nonsense from a known “charlatan” that lost his own home to foreclosure because he made stupid arguments like the one posted.

    Demilio v. Citizens Home Loans, Inc. (M.D. Ga., 2013) (“Frankly, the Court is astonished by Plaintiff’s audacity… Plaintiff requires the Court to scour a poorly-copied, 45-page “Certified Forensic Loan Audit” in an attempt to discern the basic facts of his case. This alone would be sufficient for dismissal. However, the Court is equally concerned by Plaintiff’s attempt to incorporate such an “audit,” which is more than likely the product of “charlatans who prey upon people in economically dire situation,”… As one bankruptcy judge bluntly explained, “[the Court] is quite confident there is no such thing as a ‘Certified Forensic Loan Audit’ or a ‘certified forensic auditor…. The Court will not, in good conscience, consider any facts recited by such a questionable authority.”).

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: