COMBO vs Rescission Package

For more information please call 520-405-1688 or 954-495-9867


A lot of questions about the difference between the COMBO reports and the Rescission Package have been received. So I figured I would publish the description and the differences between the two services. SO here is the email I sent to our new team member, Susan, and upon reading it I thought I would share it with everyone.

The COMBO is a title and securitization report to provide the lawyer or borrower with enough information and commentary from us about the deficiencies in the chain of title and the deficiencies in the claims regarding the balance of the loan. This work is performed by forensic analysts and myself as we apply findings of the claims of securitization (and claims that the loan was NOT securitized when there is in fact a private label Trust that claims ownership of the loan).

This in turn allows us to suggest that the notice of default was either never sent or contained false statements as to the default, false statements as to the owner of the loan, and false statements as to the amount required to “reinstate.” It shows servicer and other third party advances or gives an opinion regarding the receipt of those moneys and how that should reduce the balance of the loan claimed by the pretender lender and attacks the claim that the real creditor (the investors usually) have NOT suffered a default because they have continued to get paid by the Master Servicer or subservicer.

And finally it provides an analysis of deficiencies in the chain of title — along with showing that the pretender lender at closing of the loan never loaned any money and how subsequent assignments, endorsements, and powers of attorney were not only defective, but in most cases, fraudulent. In short, it shows how the loan never made it into the REMIC trust claimed to be the Plaintiff many foreclosure actions, which in turns means that neither the alleged trustee nor the servicer have any interest or authority to represent as to the loan of this particular borrower. These are essential issues of standing.

This is an evolving service and is continually changed to reflect the realities in litigation. The issues presented in this paragraph are precisely the issues that Patrick Giunta and I have won several cases — and lawyers across the country resulting in defeat for the banks, and even sanctions and an award of disgorgement of all money ever paid to the “servicer” (see Nash case) or the pretender lender, plus attorneys fees and court costs and even punitive damages in the millions of dollars where wrongful foreclosure actions have been filed.

The RESCISSION package is a prelitigation package is best used when there is already a COMBO report issued by any competent forensic analyst and it is aimed at the lawyer for homeowners, since most of the concepts relate to procedural rules and substantive law. In the rescission package we analyze the title, securitization, and foreclosure process (review of pleadings, orders etc) for the specific purpose of determining whether (a) a prior notice of rescission was effective (b) a present notice of rescission is effective or (c) whether a new notice of rescission is a potential strategy.

This is analyzed in connection with the statutes under the Truth in Lending Act for TILA rescission, which operates completely differently than the rules we learned in law school about common law and other statutory rescission remedies. In this package we provide templates for rescission letters, but more importantly, we provide the commentary that provides the lawyer with arguments and strategies to ENFORCE rescission.

It is our premise that every rescission notice will be ignored or rejected by the pretender lender or pretender servicer that receives the notice. Thus borrowers are not likely to get the canceled note, the satisfaction of mortgage nor the return of money paid. We have anticipated many arguments that the banks might make and some basic trap doors that should be avoided both in pleading and argument regarding the filing of an enforcement action for the rescission which is effective by operation of law when mailed. An attorneys understanding of procedure, evidence and burden of proof is essential to get the most out of this package.

QWR is a qualified written request for information on a loan under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and is often called a RESPA 6. It sets the stage for either a current notice of rescission or enforcement of an existing one. Suggestions for a QWR are included in both packages. We provide services where we do the QWR but most people seem able to do it themselves.

DVL is a debt validation letter to establish the grounds for damages under the Uniform Debt Collection Act — FDCPA. Suggestions for a DVL are included in both packagesWe provides services where we do the DVL but most people seem able to do it themselves.

10 Responses

  1. I don’t come here for me: I have all the help I need. But I ‘ll do what I can to stop anyone from being suckered into the bad strategies peddled by NG and the bad advice from those who got nowhere through their own gullibility and lack of judgment and who won’t take responsibility for their results.

  2. My question: if we are “all” cult members, where do you fit in? You’re still here too.

  3. Esther 9 – please find an attorney in your local area to handle your case. there are many pro bono associations
    if you cannot afford an attorney

  4. Java i feel your pain
    Believe me. The whole fight is a uphill battle, but im a capricorn guess they dont get that.

  5. Please give me any feedback you can, trying to confirm the language, please. Found out that the servicer is the CEO and PRESIDENT of the servicing company. According to eligibility-Trustee must be A NEUTRAL AGENT-NON AFFILIATED with either lender of borrower, for a long time servicer was my lender, and still want to be clear: Can Servicer be LENDER TOO?

    That would present a dual conflict of interest, just as MERS was: An employee of Mers can’t also be an employee of a servicer-lender, again dual conflict of interest.

    That would have an impact on a lot of people.

    Isn’t there a Rule or law, or Statute, or UCC code
    One rule, I found: states something like:

    The agent of the SERVICER Party of the consideration, LIEN RELEASE, says on real small print: agent of the servicer party: written across the very bottom of the document

  6. Javagold was Neil Garfield your attorney? I am sorry for your loss.

  7. I am not a cult-member. I didn’t even like Blue Oyster Cult.

  8. Either package is peddling. None of that works so far. No winners on LL. Only cult members.

  9. Made most of these arguments in NJ , still lost the house. The servicer lied and eventually stole the house. Until I see a winning game plan for everyone , I am not buying into this.

Contribute to the discussion!